Imran Hussain MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps her Department is taking to support disabled people in receipt of personal independence payments.

• 7 May 2025 · India-Pakistan: Escalation · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I forgot to say in my speech that I will vote against these measures if the Government push ahead. Will my hon. Friend do the same?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 6 May 2025 · Trade Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 6 May 2025 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Kashmir: Increasing Tension · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—that is the crux. As I said before, I acknowledge that the Government have gone a considerable way. The Employment Rights Bill will make significant changes that allow millions of people to benefit from statutory sick pay when they would not have before. But the journey must not end there. The hon. Member is absolutely right that there are many people who are still missing out—there are 300,000 people who will significantly miss out, as I said. This is not just an economic issue, and it should not be viewed as one. It is a moral issue. The Government have the power to ensure that every worker—whether in an office, a hospital, a factory or on the frontline—can take the time they need to recover without fear of financial ruin. They also have the power to ensure that no worker, especially those with long-term illnesses, receives less under the new rules than they would have received before. Let me be clear: we cannot allow this opportunity to pass without ensuring that every worker benefits from the changes we have introduced. This is our chance to build a fairer society that treats working people with the dignity and respect they deserve. I hope the Minister, for whom I have much respect and regard, understands that I come at this from a place of support. He has a long track record of understanding these issues, and this is our opportunity. We must go further, because that is the only way we will address this matter, so I urge him to do so. Will he commit to reviewing SSP so that workers no longer have to rely on poverty pay when they are sick? Will he today commit to reviewing the impact of the new changes, specifically in relation to the 300,000 people who will be worse off under the new 80% replacement rate? On the second question in particular, I urge the Minister to provide information to allow the House to see the impact on those 300,000 people. I do not believe for one minute that the Government intend to make them worse off; but, equally, I do not think we can just ignore it. Finally, will the Minister outline exactly what steps he is taking to make sure that those with the most severe illnesses, and those who find themselves sick or in recovery for longer than five weeks, do not find themselves unfairly punished? The Minister knows that if we fail here, we will fail an entire generation of workers.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Statutory Sick Pay · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important and pertinent point. If he bears with me, I will address that later in my contribution. It is actually one of two points I want to address. Hon. Members will know that I tabled two amendments to the Employment Rights Bill to strengthen its provisions on statutory sick pay. The first sought to bring statutory sick pay into line with the national living wage, so that no full-time worker is forced to live in poverty while unwell. The second amendment aimed to guarantee that no worker would be worse off under the new system, regardless of their earnings—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made reference to that, and I will come on to it. First, I turn to the rate of statutory sick pay. For far too long, our statutory sick pay system has been one of inadequacy, and it has failed workers when they are at their most vulnerable. The pandemic laid bare just how broken the system is. Over a third of workers rely on statutory sick pay, and at a rate of £118.75 a week it is nothing more than a cruel joke—a poverty wage that leaves workers in financial insecurity, instead of being able to rest, recover and take the time they need to return to work fully fit. The current rate makes up a mere 16.5% of the average weekly wage in the UK, far behind our European counterparts. To name some, workers in Iceland, Norway and Luxembourg are entitled to up to 100% of their pay during sick leave. However, we do not trail far behind only our international counterparts. When statutory sick pay was introduced in the 1980s, it was equivalent to 35% of the average weekly wage—double what workers can expect today. No other financial responsibility in a worker’s life is ever slashed by 83%. When someone falls ill, their bills, their council tax, their electricity bill, their mortgage payments and their grocery bills do not suddenly go down. That poses the question: why does statutory sick pay remain such a paltry sum, forcing people to choose between their health and their financial survival? We know that the current rate pushes too many workers into the workplace when they are simply not well enough. It entrenches presenteeism, harming public health, reducing productivity and contributing to longer-term sickness and burnout, which makes workers drop out of the workforce entirely. The clear consensus is that the rate of statutory sick pay must increase, and it must increase in line with the national living wage. That call is echoed by unions such as Unite and Unison, and by organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group, Scope, Mind and Disability Rights UK. It is also supported by the majority of the British public. I urge the Minister not to ignore the swell of public opinion or the needs of workers across the UK, and to share the next steps that the Government are taking to fairly recompense workers during periods of illness. The rate of statutory sick pay is not the only change that is urgently needed. Despite the Government’s best efforts, those on the lowest incomes, who do the hard and vital work in our economy, will be financially penalised for falling ill. 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. 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 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. 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.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely right that the Opposition devastated our communities and left us with billions of pounds’ worth of debt, but it is not right that disabled people and the most vulnerable in our society should pay for it. Thousands of my constituents continue to be fearful about the announced welfare cuts, and disability organisations have warned that hundreds of thousands of people will be pushed into poverty. So I say to the Chancellor: we must make the right political choice. We must protect the most vulnerable in society and introduce a wealth tax so that multimillionaires and billionaires can pay their fair share.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Conflict in Gaza · Hansard source

  More

  The double standards and injustice we are witnessing on the international stage are truly appalling. It is obvious that Israel is breaking international law, as every serious legal expert on international law has pointed out. It is shameful, frankly, that the Government refuse to state that about Israel but will rightly do so about Russia’s violation in Ukraine. I say to the Foreign Secretary that the concern and outrage that he expresses at the Dispatch Box is not ending the bloodshed. When will we get the scale of sanctions on Israel that its war crimes demand?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Military Co-operation with Israel · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important and timely debate. He is right to refer to the Israeli airstrikes that killed over 400 people last night, shattering the fragile ceasefire and violating international law. He will also know that this has happened against the backdrop of the last two weeks, when we have seen a siege and blockade of Gaza, denying the people there food, water and electricity, which is collective punishment and in itself a war crime under international law. Does he agree that the silence of the international community is unacceptable? It is not a choice to act. The international community, including the UK, has obligations under international law and the UK Government must meet those obligations by imposing immediate sanctions on Israel.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Military Co-operation with Israel · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member makes a powerful case. Does he agree that the international dimensions of the situation are so clear, with the ICJ investigating genocide and the International Criminal Court investigating war crimes, even though it continues to be attacked for that, that there is no room for any nation to deny this serious international situation? Secondly, would he agree that silence, frankly, goes with hypocrisy and double standards?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The reality remains that over the last few weeks, thousands of the most severely disabled people in my constituency and millions across the UK have watched in disbelief as politicians debate cuts to the support that enables their very survival, leaving many at breaking point. Does the Secretary of State understand the real fear and distress that that has caused? Will she today commit at the Dispatch Box to ensuring that not a single person who currently receives PIP will be unfairly punished or left struggling by these plans?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. This very important debate greatly matters to all my constituents, particularly the 4,900 women in my constituency whom it impacts. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) said in eloquently opening the debate, over 3.7 million women born in the 1950s have suffered grave injustices because of the changes to state pension age brought about in 1995, 2007 and 2011. Those changes were introduced without proper notice, leaving many in financial and emotional distress. Those 1950s women worked hard all their lives; they paid their dues and contributed to the country and the economy, only for many of them to find that the retirement they had planned for was stolen from them without support or the basic courtesy of being informed in time. The Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign has fought tirelessly for over a decade to shine a light on that injustice, and I pay tribute, along with other Members, to its determination. I assure those in my constituency that it continues to have my support and solidarity. The previous Government kicked the can down the road and delayed committing to anything that could repair the damage done to WASPI women. Their delay has meant that at least 300,000 WASPI women have died waiting for the justice they deserved. I will say that the current Government must not, and cannot, go down the same path. While I note this Government’s acknowledgment of the ombudsman’s report that failings happened, communication was inadequate and women suffered, I also note their commitment to ensure that the maladministration and delay in sending out notifications never happens again, both of which are welcome. Frankly, an apology alone is not enough. Apologies do not pay the rent, put food on the table or undo years of financial struggle. Let me be clear: this is about the principle of Government decision making and the responsibility to communicate properly, so that people can plan their futures with confidence. Crucially, as has been said by many hon. Members, it is also about recompense and redress. In this case, a 28-month delay in notifying affected women meant that they lost precious time to adjust their plans. Some lost tens of thousands of pounds, while others lost their homes. That is time and money that they will never get back. I say to the Minister that we must look again at the ombudsman’s recommendations for fair remedy. Words are not enough; we need action. I know that a High Court challenge could be on the way, but that should not be necessary. The WASPI women should not have to take their own Government to court to be heard. The point has been made, which I want to echo, that there is a reason why we have a parliamentary ombudsman, why we have inquiries and why we should follow well-made recommendations. I believe the Government seriously need to look at this case. We must now ask: what more can be done to ensure that 1950s women receive fair treatment? I urge the Minister to address that question and to set out the next steps that the Government are taking to work constructively with campaigners, MPs and affected women to find a fair resolution. Whether it is through targeted support, a compensation framework or other measures, we must ensure that WASPI women are not abandoned once again.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a two-tier justice system, it is not the one claimed by the Conservatives, but it is certainly one that was created by them—one where victims of crime are let down by delays, where working-class communities see justice delayed and denied, and where the reality remains that black and ethnic minority defendants are disproportionately sentenced? Does he agree that instead of playing political games with sentencing, we should focus on delivering real justice, ensuring that every decision made in our courts is based on evidence, not culture wars or headlines in right-wing rags?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Kashmir: Human Rights and Peace · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very passionate case for the rights of Kashmiris. He is absolutely right to mention the revocation of articles 370 and 35A. Does he agree that that was in direct contravention of international law and a clear attempt by the right-wing Modi Government to quash the Kashmiris’ struggle? And is he as concerned as I am at the lack of international condemnation?