Imran Hussain MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will my hon. Friend give way for a friendly intervention?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Strait of Hormuz · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to that point. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not get an extra minute for taking an intervention—will I get one?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Defence · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Social and Affordable Housing: Bradford · Hansard source

  More

  11. What assessment his Department has made of the level of need for additional social and affordable housing in Bradford.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Social and Affordable Housing: Bradford · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  As I begin my remarks in this important debate, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not oppose free trade deals. They have immense benefits, as was set out by the Minister. For once, or certainly on this very rare occasion, I accept some of the points made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), about missed opportunities. There has been one big missed opportunity in this deal: at what point do we sacrifice our obligation to protect human rights in favour of free trade? That is what I will focus on. The free trade agreement before us raises many serious questions about our trade policy and human rights, but for many of my constituents in Bradford East, the debate is about not abstract trade policy, or distant diplomatic calculations, but an issue very dear to their heart: Kashmir, which continues to be occupied. I represent thousands of British Kashmiris with close family ties to Jammu and Kashmir. For them, the actions of the Indian state are not theoretical, but lived realities, felt through family separation, fear, arbitrary detention and the systematic erosion of basic freedoms. That is why the UK-India free trade agreement raises such serious and urgent concerns. It is a major agreement with over 30 chapters, as pointed out by the Minister, yet it contains no explicit enforceable human rights clause. It goes much further than tariffs; it is about standards, co-operation and the institutional machinery that will shape the relationship for years to come. The central question for many of my constituents is: how can we seek to deepen economic co-operation with India while remaining silent on the grave ongoing human rights violations in Kashmir and beyond? Let me be clear at the outset: economic engagement can never come at the expense of human rights, and must never come at the expense of the Kashmiri people. For nearly 80 years, Kashmiris have endured persecution, repression and injustice. In recent years, the situation has dramatically worsened. Since the illegal revocation of articles 370 and 35A in 2019, Indian-occupied Kashmir has experienced prolonged restrictions on civil liberties, mass surveillance, arbitrary detention and repeated internet shutdowns. Political dissent has been criminalised. Journalists have been silenced, and human rights defenders have been targeted. These are not isolated incidents; they form part of a deliberate and sustained policy to strip Kashmiris of their dignity, voice and agency. I hear about this from the wider community I represent. Their family members have been detained without charge, have their communications monitored, and have their basic freedoms denied. This is not an abstract foreign policy issue; it is a human rights crisis that reaches directly into our communities here in Britain. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.