Imran Hussain
MP for Bradford East · Labour · United Kingdom
“The existing settlement system is unlawful and sustained by a wider machinery: Ministers and state bodies, banks, construction and property companies, and technology companies providing surveillance, used daily against Palestinians. I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must now see these regulations, with their widened scope, used for widespread sanctions against Israel for its war crimes and breach of international humanitarian law.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Like other colleagues, I welcome these important regulations. They strengthen our firm commitment to international humanitarian law and make it clear that there will be consequences for those who breach those laws.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister also confirm that the new powers will be used against those responsible for and involved in obstructing humanitarian aid to Gaza? Will he confirm—this was referred to by my hon.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this timely and important debate and for the excellent speech that he is making. Although he briefly touched on the urgent need before moving on to the longer-term situation, does he agree that in places like Bradford, where we currently have 25,000 people on a waiting list—many are families wi…”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons13 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,422 held · 606 searchable for Imran Hussain. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Under the Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which will automatically delete a huge number of pieces of employment rights legislation, the Control of Asbestos Regulations will cease to have any force unless amended or replaced by secondary legislation. The Government were warned of that when they were rushing the retained EU law Bill through Parliament. They were warned that sunsetting so many rights and protections was reckless at best and dangerous at worst. They were even pushed on the Control of Asbestos Regulations specifically during the passage of the Bill. The Minister responsible answered that the Government saw opportunities to reduce business burdens and reaffirmed that the United Kingdom has high standards of health and safety.”
House of Commons19 April 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Act 1974 and the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, but with so many people contracting asbestosis after being exposed in their workplace, there is real concern that the existing legislation is just not enough, so the Government need to look long and hard at whether further protections, which are actually enforceable, are needed. I am rushing slightly because time is limited. The Government first need to make clear whether the current legislation and protections for working people from the risks of asbestos exposure will actually exist beyond the end of the year, because right now that is far from clear.”
House of Commons19 April 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The risk that asbestos poses for working people in particular—they are forced to spend significant periods in workplaces riddled with it—is significant and deeply alarming, because there are just so many workplaces, especially in the public sector, where asbestos remains present. The TUC found that 90% of schools still contain asbestos. We have heard similar statistics for hospitals—the NHS—and other public sector buildings. It seems that the primary protection at the moment is through the Health and Safety at Work etc.”
House of Commons19 April 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was therefore right, and long overdue, that the last Labour Government banned the import, supply and use of asbestos in 1999. Yet asbestos remains all too prevalent in many buildings across the UK, as we have heard. The serious dangers that asbestos poses, despite being banned for almost a quarter of a century, are shown nowhere more clearly than in the number of people who have died as a result of asbestos-related conditions. Each year, there are about 5,000 asbestos-related deaths in the UK, with 2,300 in 2021 alone attributed to mesothelioma, and almost 500 mentions of asbestosis on death certificates.”
House of Commons19 April 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mr Paisley, it is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, sir. I, too, start by thanking the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) for bringing this important debate here today. I think we can all agree that, in her opening remarks, she made an absolutely firm case on the real dangers of asbestos. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my right hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), who all made excellent contributions and highlighted the real dangers, but also some tragic real-life stories of the real impact that asbestos is having. As we all know and as has been said here today, asbestos is a deeply dangerous material.”
House of Commons19 April 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We warned the Government years ago, long before even the 2015 general election, about the exploitation of those on zero-hours contracts and in the gig economy. Trade unions have been banging on the Government’s door urging for stronger protection for workers in a changing economy. We know full well that the Government knew of the hardships created for working people because of zero-hours contracts, so pleading ignorance is no defence for their failure to act. In fact, there is no defence at all.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the negligible trickle of Bills that relate to the employment rights of working people have come before the House during their more than a decade in office—unless, of course, they concern taking rights away through their anti-trade union restrictions—in contrast with the recent flood of employment rights legislation proposed from the Back Benches, it would seem that the Government have suddenly discovered the exploitation suffered by working people. But that is not the case. At the end of 2019—well over three years ago—the Government promised to introduce an employment Bill, which many, including Labour MPs, hoped would address the exploitation of working people and would help create an economy and workforce fit for the modern day.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I also start by welcoming the Bill brought by the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton). As a Member of this House representing one of the most deprived constituencies in the country, which is not unlike my own, he too will know the role that bad pay, long hours and few rights play in trapping working people in a constant cycle of poverty and deprivation and entrenching poverty in his constituency—again, not unlike many constituencies up and down the country. I am glad this Bill to address one of the biggest challenges faced by working people is finally reaching its conclusion today. I am glad the Government have supported the Bill through its passage.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, it absolutely is, and I will go on to clarify that in my remarks. The Government’s only excuse for their refusal to tackle the exploitation of working people before their support for this Bill is that Ministers were too busy hailing the alleged benefits of being on zero-hours contracts. The reality is that the advantages of these contracts asserted by the Government are frankly alien to people on them. What they face is no utopia of flexibility, but a prison of exploitation by bad bosses at worst or a world of uncertainty at best. As has been pointed out during the passage of the Bill, people are often compelled to accept shifts that they do not want—and so they struggle to work—because they know that if they turn them down, they may not get any hours at all in future.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To suggest that the majority of those people somehow benefit from some flexibility in zero-hours contracts—or some of the points that the Minister may outline later—is just not true.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman’s constituency is known for the things he has said. He will appreciate there is a huge difference between shift working and zero-hours contracts. Those are two very different concepts, and I do not think anybody is arguing against shift working. Equally, nobody is saying there should be no flexibility. I accept that in a minority of situations—perhaps, for example, in the case of students, as was mentioned earlier—there may need to be that flexibility. To answer the question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan)—I will cover this later as well—the reality is that over the past decade we have gone from around 150,000 people on zero-hours contracts to more than 1 million, as the Minister will know.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will refer the Minister to another survey. By far the most over-represented groups of people on zero-hours contracts are women and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. The Minister quotes statistics, but in the current market people who have a choice between zero-hours contracts or no work at all are a different case altogether.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That includes stronger protections for those on zero-hours contracts, with a ban on contracts without a minimum number of guaranteed hours and the right to a contract reflecting hours normally worked, and a requirement for employers to provide reasonable notice of shift changes, with wages paid in full to workers whose shifts are cancelled without notice, so they are no longer left to shoulder the burden and suffer the costs of unexpected last-minute changes.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members, rather than by introducing their own employment Bill, the next Labour Government will not be so timid. As set out by the leader of the Labour party—the next Prime Minister—within the first 100 days of taking office, a Labour Government will bring legislation to the Floor of the House to begin to deliver our groundbreaking new deal for working people, which will ensure that our economy is fit for the 21st century and will transform the rights and protections afforded to ordinary working people for the better.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member’s Bill addresses that issue to some degree. We therefore support the Government in ensuring that this Bill and Bills like it get on to the statute book, because long overdue as it is, it is a step in the right direction towards stronger rights and better protections for an overexploited workforce. However, I cannot let the opportunity of today’s debate go by without asking whether Government support would have been quite so forthcoming had it not been for the relentless pressure they have faced from our trade unions, which have long campaigned for zero-hours contract workers to get the protections they need and deserve. Although it has taken this Conservative Government years to take some form of action on strengthening workers’ rights by supporting the private Members’ Bills brought by several hon.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They commissioned Matthew Taylor to carry out a review on modern working practices and then accepted his recommendations in full as far back as 2018, but rather than implementing the recommendations, they sat on the review instead. Many of them, including recommendation 13 to allow workers on zero-hours contracts “a right to request a contract that better reflects the hours they work”, have gone unfulfilled. That is, until the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) introduced his Bill last year, four years on from the Taylor review. That lack of progress in implementing the Taylor review’s recommendations almost five years later is lamentable for us, but is devastating for those working people who would be helped by the greater security at work that the recommendations would provide. It is right that the hon.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They are often offered shifts at short notice, forcing them to go to great expense to arrange childcare and transport. As I set out on Second Reading, when the Conservative party came to power, just over 150,000 people were employed on zero-hours contracts. At the last count, more than 1 million were employed on them according to the Office for National Statistics. As the Bill recognises, for a small group of people who are okay with varying shift patterns and do not face significant outgoings, the contracts may fit better, but let us not kid ourselves: the flexibility of zero-hours contracts is flexibility for the employer, not for working people. As I have mentioned, it is also not as though the Government have never had a chance to improve the rights of working people before this Bill today.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is political point scoring on a very serious issue. The fact remains, and this is perhaps where he could direct his energies, that his Government ordered the Taylor review more than five years ago, the findings of which were published in their “Good Work Plan” in 2018. Where has he been for the past few years not questioning his own Government on why they are failing working people, and frankly, why they have failed those being exploited by zero-hours contracts until today? That is perhaps the question he should be asking. People on zero-hours contracts often face having the shifts they had planned and budgeted for cancelled, leaving them unable to make their bills add up at the end of the month.”
House of Commons24 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q13. Let us be absolutely clear in this Chamber: under this Government’s new dystopian, far-right-appeasing, anti-refugee Bill, those who are trafficked to the UK would still face deportation. Can the Prime Minister therefore clear up whether Sir Mo Farah, who last year bravely revealed that he was trafficked to the UK as a child, would have been removed under this Bill?”
House of Commons8 March 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the party that has pioneered protections for women in legislation by introducing the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equality Act 2010, the minimum wage and Sure Start, protecting working parents will always be a priority for Labour. We support this important Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central on the work that he has done in bringing it to the House and guiding it every step of the way.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will not only extend statutory maternity and paternity leave to give new parents stronger protections, but tackle workplace sexual harassment, create a single enforcement body to uphold the existing rights of working people and working parents, introduce ethnicity pay gap monitoring so that we can tackle the issue of those from an ethnic minority background being paid less, and repeal the draconian Trade Union Act 2016, to empower working people to fight for a better deal, as well as the scandalous Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill, which will see Ministers sack key workers for standing up to protect their jobs, pay and rights at work.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A general election is not expected for a little while yet—the Minister is preoccupied, but I am sure he agrees with that statement; I suspect that Government Members hope that that is the case—so there is still time for the Government to introduce such a Bill. If the Conservatives will not introduce that legislation, the next Labour Government will do so: a comprehensive new deal for working people delivered within our first 100 days in office.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not believe for one minute that that is the aim of the Bill, and I think the whole House would agree that the matter needs clarification from the Minister and urgent attention. Although I welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill and although it has the full support of those on the Labour Front Bench and the rest of the Labour party, it should not have fallen to Back Benchers to introduce such legislation. The legislation should have been introduced by the Government, not through a private Member’s Bill, as part of a comprehensive expansion of employment rights and protection. We would have liked to have seen the measures in the Bill introduced as part of the Government’s much-promised but still to be delivered employment Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Barnsley Central goes some way towards addressing the issue. The Government have done the right thing by joining the Opposition in supporting the Bill on its legislative journey. Let me make two brief points, which my hon. Friend mentioned. Although I think we can all agree that the Bill should enjoy the support of the House, it is very much an enabling Bill and further regulations from the Minister are required. I am hopeful that the Minister will set out some timescales and further particulars for those regulations. The other matter, although it does not fall within the scope of the Bill, is the six-week rule that my hon. Friend quite rightly mentioned, which is very important. The tragedy is that that rule will exclude groups of people that it should not exclude.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Eight years ago, the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that 54,000 new mothers were forced out of their jobs because of either compulsory redundancy or workplace conditions that were so unwelcoming or so unsupportive that they had no choice but to leave. The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee found, following the EHRC’s report, that the discrimination and poor treatment that pregnant women and new mothers face was worse than it was a decade ago. That is disgraceful, and it falls far below the standards we should expect in this country. The hon. Member for Orpington was right to say that in 2023 that should shame everybody. We should be going forwards, not backwards, strengthening the rights and protections afforded to working people, not letting them erode. I am pleased that the Bill promoted by my hon.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that this Bill has the strong support of Members right across the House. We have heard excellent speeches today from the hon. Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for North West Norfolk (James Wild). I know that we are all keen to wrap up proceedings in this House and send this important Bill to the other place, so I will not go into detail on the contributions that have been made, but the central theme that has run through the debate is that this is a very important Bill that rightly enjoys the support of Members across the House. This House is at its best when we come together on such important matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, and as I set out on Second Reading, this Bill is long overdue.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why, although we have supported the Bill throughout its stages, the next Labour Government will be committed to building on this legislation and introducing a right to paid carer’s leave in our new deal for working people.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, as I have pointed out in debates on the Bill’s earlier stages, the statutory requirement for unpaid carer’s leave is not enough. Although it gives them the right to take leave for caring responsibilities, it does nothing to support those thousands of unpaid carers through the financial challenges they face, even when organisations such as Carers UK say that it would increase productivity for employers and economic gains for the Treasury by improving retention rates, and although it would support working women, the group who are overwhelmingly the most likely to be juggling work and unpaid caring responsibilities.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These unpaid carers—these everyday heroes who help to ensure that those who can be cared for at home, surrounded by friends and family in a familiar environment, are indeed cared for at home—have no statutory right to take leave from their caring responsibilities, even when they are also easing the burden on our already overstretched and overworked NHS in the process. The Bill has our full support today, but it has had a long journey, given that the Government first promised the right to statutory carer’s leave nearly six years ago, and then again just over three years ago. As with many of the measures in this Session’s private Members’ Bills, the Government should have introduced this important statutory right in an employment Bill, but I am nevertheless glad that we are finally in a position to make progress with guaranteeing it.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on the fantastic job she has done in leading this important Bill through all its stages, and on another excellent speech which summed up the concerns about this important issue. I also welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for Bracknell (James Sunderland), for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), all of whom made persuasive cases for the Bill. I am certain that all Members want it to complete its passage today. As I said on Second Reading, about 5 million people currently care for their loved ones without pay, while at the same time holding down employment.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government had given the impression to women and equalities organisations that they had changed their mind on scrapping employer liability and had listened to the Women and Equalities Committee 2018 inquiry, and their response to the consultation findings seemed to make it clear that Ministers were committed to introducing the measures set out in this Bill, so what has changed and why did they not make their position on this matter clear on Second Reading? Why did they not consult on it with third sector organisations including the Fawcett Society, the EHRC and the TUC, who have been blindsided by this amendment?”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is also particularly disappointing given that since 2021 the Government have given the impression to women and equalities organisations that they have changed their minds on the scrapping of employer liability for third parties in 2013. That is an important point. While the legislation as proposed is a lot stronger, the protection on third-party liability in the workplace did exist in the Equality Act 2010 before it was repealed in 2013 by the coalition Government.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why the Labour party supported the Bill on Second Reading and supported it without amendment in Committee, to get it on to the statute book as soon as possible. However, we are frustrated and deeply disappointed by the amendment the Government have tabled at the last minute. It was laid without any prior consultation with any group from the women and equalities sector, without any mention during the Bill’s previous stages, and with just a week’s notice before today’s debate. We believe it significantly waters down protections against harassment in the workplace, absolving employers of liability and letting perpetrators off the hook in certain circumstances.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for introducing this important Bill. She rightly says the levels of harassment in our workplace today are a stain on society and unacceptable in these times. I first want to make it absolutely clear that this Bill is very important and desperately needed, as I know Members across the House agree. As I set out on Second Reading, about half of all women have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace according to the TUC, and according to the Government Equalities Office around 80% of women who have faced harassment do not go on to report it. This harassment harms not only their prospects, progression and confidence in the workplace, but their mental and physical health. It is, frankly, an experience nobody should ever have to face.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely. The hon. Lady will know that, of course, our position is to support the Bill, because weaker legislation is better than none at all, but she will understand that at the heart of our point is the message that we send by watering down the Bill. Although, as hon. Members have argued, the amendment itself would not facilitate harassment, it would send a message and could create a culture. That could lead down a slippery slope towards harassment. On that basis, we are absolutely clear that the amendment is a watering down of the measures. I understand the hon. Lady’s predicament, which she has set out.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although this important Bill has been significantly weakened, we will nevertheless support it so that together we can challenge the sexual harassment that happens, particularly in our workplaces, against women and girls.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think we have made our position absolutely clear. We want this important legislation in statute, so although we feel that it is considerably weakened by the amendment, we will support it. Weakened legislation is better than no legislation—I thought that I had made myself absolutely clear on that. I know that we are keen to move this legislation on, so I will make it absolutely clear right now that the next Labour Government will require all employers to create and maintain workplaces that are absolutely free from sexual harassment, including by third parties, in all circumstances. We will achieve that through our new deal for working people, delivered within our first 100 days of office. We are proud to be the party of and for working people, and the party that introduced the groundbreaking Equality Act 2010.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will ensure that everyone working regular hours for 12 weeks or more will gain a right to a regular contract that will reflect the hours normally worked. It will ensure that all workers get reasonable notice of any change in shifts or working time, with wages for any shift cancelled without appropriate notice being paid to workers in full. We will, of course, support this Bill. I look forward to seeing it progress to Committee very soon, so that we waste no more time to enhance much-needed rights for working people.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Why did the Government not include this legislation in the employment Bill that they have repeatedly promised from the Dispatch Box but appear now to have dropped? Such a Bill offered a clear opportunity to introduce the statutory right to request more predictable terms and conditions, as well as the opportunity to strengthen protections for pregnant women and new parents, to introduce a statutory right to carer’s leave and to protect people from harassment in the workplace—today alone we have considered Bills on all those things. I want to be absolutely clear that the next Labour Government will, within the first 100 days of our taking office, move to put on the statute book our new deal for working people, which will ban zero-hours contracts and contracts without a minimum number of guaranteed hours.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was, then, pleased that in their December 2018 good work plan the Government accepted that this is an issue that faces our economy in the 21st century and that action is needed to protect people’s rights in the modern world of work. However, as for many other pieces of legislation to address the injustices faced by working people, we have been waiting for far too long to see a Bill like this on the Floor of the House. Matthew Taylor published his review of modern working practices in July 2017 and it took another year and a half for the Government to publish their good work plan in December 2018. Although they accepted the recommendation to create a right to request a contract that guarantees hours for those on zero-hours contracts, it is not until now—more than four years later—that we are seeing legislation to give effect to it.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many are given hours at short notice: a TUC poll found that four in five were offered shifts with less than 24 hours’ notice, leaving them scrambling for childcare cover or transport to work, often at great cost. They are left entirely at the whim of the employer and, as a result, zero-hours contract workers find it next to impossible to plan their finances on time, thereby holding them back and holding back our economy. Is it really any wonder why our productivity is so poor compared with other countries when working people are exploited in this way? Women and those from an ethnic minority background are more likely to be exploited by zero-hours contracts, entrenching the discrimination they already face in the workplace.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 2010, just over 150,000 workers were employed on a zero-hours contract, but that number has risen dramatically, with more than 1 million now employed on such contracts, according to the latest release from the Office for National Statistics. As the hon. Member for Blackpool South highlighted, it does not reflect a rise in the number of people wanting flexible work, as such contracts offer flexibility only for employers, not for working people. It is a rise in the number of people who are being exploited in a dire employment market by bad bosses. Under these contracts, working people feel pressured into accepting shifts, knowing that if they turn them down, they may not get any hours at all in future.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) on bringing forward this very important Bill. I apologise: I may have mistakenly referred to him as the hon. Member for Blackpool North earlier; I know that can cause serious issues on occasion. I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief as I am sure that Members across the House will wish to wrap up this debate and move the Bill on to the next stage of the legislative process as soon as possible. This appears to be a welcome piece of legislation, as measures to give workers the right to request more predictable terms and conditions of work are long overdue. Indeed, over the past decade we have seen an explosion in the use of unpredictable and exploitative zero-hours contracts that fail to guarantee for working people a set number of hours of work on set work schedules.”
House of Commons3 February 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very grateful to the Minister. Thus far in this whole debate I have not heard one credible reason why we should not abolish non-dom tax status. The Minister seemed to indicate earlier that she is waiting for the right fiscal event, and then she will abolish it Is that right?”
House of Commons31 January 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will be grateful if the Minister could inform us whether the Government will review all legislation passed in the same period as the 2021 regulations to ensure that similar errors do not exist. What are the Government doing to ensure confidence in the accuracy of their legislation, even if we do not necessarily agree with its intentions? What are they doing to ensure that no health and safety protections are lost during the passage of the retained EU law Bill?”
House of Commons30 January 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We also know that the regulations, which allow the Health and Safety Executive to continue to charge fees for the costs incurred during its work, will not negate the damage that the Government have inflicted on it. During their time in office, the Government have slashed funding to the HSE by almost half and have presided over the loss of a third of inspectors. It all goes back to the very pertinent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. The reality remains that over the past decade, the number of health and safety inspectors has gone down from just under 1,500 to below 1,000. Clearly, therefore, the HSE’s ability to do its job to keep people safe has been dramatically reduced.”
House of Commons30 January 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that the Government are forcing through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill—itself a product of the UK’s departure from the EU, as the regulations are—we are naturally worried that they have not done proper due diligence on that legislation either. All retained EU law will be scrubbed from the statute book by the end of 2023, unless the Government move to reinstate or replace it. That includes not only important employment rights and protections, but health and safety protections, too. If the Government are missing important wording in the regulations, what else are they missing in that incredibly complex Bill?”
House of Commons30 January 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We want to know not only how and why the errors that necessitated the Government revoking and replacing the 2021 regulations were made in the first place, but how and why they were not picked up in the drafting process. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation today—it was an unfortunate oversight—but these are important regulations, and the House and the country rely on Ministers scrutinising legislation properly before it is laid, in particular with checks in the drafting process. We therefore have real concerns that both primary and secondary legislation brought before the House has not been looked at properly by Ministers who seek to put it on the statute book, including in other areas. The regulations prompt that question.”
House of Commons30 January 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will try to keep my remarks brief, as I am sure hon. Members across the Committee want to get to an important debate in the main Chamber, in particular to stand up for the rights and protections of our hard-working frontline staff. We of course support the regulations. As set out by the Minister, they amend the errors in the 2021 regulations that were identified by the Department for Work and Pensions. They will ensure that the Health and Safety Executive and the Office for Nuclear Regulation can go about their work of maintaining strong health and safety standards. Nevertheless, while we will not oppose the regulations, we have concerns about why the Minister has had to make them again.”
House of Commons30 January 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Last night, the BBC revealed that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew the extent of Narendra Modi’s involvement in the Gujarat massacre that paved the way for the persecution of Muslims and other minorities that we see in India today. Senior diplomats reported that the massacre could not have taken place without the “climate of impunity” created by Modi and that he was, in the FCDO’s words, “directly responsible” for the violence. Given that hundreds were brutally killed and that families across India and the world, including here in the UK, are still without justice, does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Office diplomats that Modi was directly responsible? What more does the Foreign Office know about Modi’s involvement in that grave act of ethnic cleansing?”
House of Commons18 January 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗