Debate on the Address

Adnan Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones]

I do not disagree with the right hon. Lady, because we absolutely need to make sure that our prices are fair. That means looking across Wales as a whole, but also benefiting from the renewables that we know Wales has in abundance. The energy independence Bill is a decisive step, as I said.

Another major scourge of bill payers that is firmly in the sights of this Government is our failing water companies, including Welsh Water, and I welcome the urgent steps being taken by the Government to reform our broken water system through a new water Bill. In March, Ofwat published its finding that Welsh Water breached its legal obligations in operating its waste water treatment works and network. Ofwat found that Welsh Water failed to operate, maintain and upgrade its waste water assets adequately to ensure that they could cope with the flows of sewage and waste water. We know that Welsh Water discharged raw sewage into rivers, lakes and seas for over 968,000 hours in 2024. Water pollution in Wales has reached emergency levels, so I welcome the water Bill. I look forward to seeing water bosses being held to account, and to the clean-up of our rivers and waterways.

I welcome further action by this Government to back British Steel. Whereas the Tories left our steel sector unsupported, Labour is taking action. That includes nationalising British Steel and protecting domestic production from international dumping and uncompetitive subsidies. UK Steel has said that the Government’s steel strategy is the most significant intervention to support UK steel competitiveness in over a decade. The Government’s new target for at least half of steel used in Britain to be made here is a major boost for Welsh steel, with Welsh manufacturing expected to account for half of future steelmaking. We must not forget about Port Talbot and Llanwern in south Wales, and I pay tribute to my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for the sterling work that she has done to promote and protect our steel at Llanwern.

The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has been disproportionately damaging to the Welsh economy, because Wales remains a significant manufacturing economy, with 60% of our exports going to the European Union—that is 10% higher than the UK average. Although negotiations on the EU trade Bill are ongoing, I urge the Government to commit to securing a carve-out on animal welfare, like that secured by Switzerland in a similar deal. The UK is proudly a nation of animal lovers and a world leader in animal welfare standards, and we were the first country in the world to ban fur farming. A future trade deal, involving dynamic alignment in key sectors, must not risk watering down UK commitments to ban the sale of foie gras or end the import of fur.

I gently say to those on the Government Front Bench that there is a lack of legislation on animal welfare in this King’s Speech. I said that we are a nation of animal lovers, and the Government could have some easy wins. We are committed to the animal welfare strategy, and we could use it to ban the use of snare traps, bring forward a close season for hares, and bring into effect the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023. These are small pieces of legislation, but they could make a huge difference to wild, domestic and farmed animals, both here and abroad.

I will move on to small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses has estimated that 50% to 54% of SMEs regularly experience late payments, which cost the average SME £22,000 a year. On average, businesses spend 86 hours a year chasing invoices. This is a massive problem for businesses in my constituency of Newport West and Islwyn, and I am pleased that we are taking action to stop it happening.

Looking ahead to Great British Railways, this Labour Government’s new railways Bill will transform the railway network in Wales as we deliver our £14 billion plan to improve Wales’s railways. Front and centre of that is the £90 million investment in five new stations between the Severn tunnel and Cardiff, including new stations at Newport West in my constituency and Cardiff Parkway next door. These new stations will support over 12,000 new jobs across Monmouthshire, Newport and Cardiff. South Wales is also set to benefit from an additional £40 million investment to upgrade two sets of rail tracks, which will improve service reliability and capacity for additional services. Labour’s railways Bill will also give the Welsh Government a new statutory role, to ensure that Wales-wide strategies feed into cross-border plans by Great British Railways. This will be a key pillar of the constructive and professional relationship between the two Governments as they work together for the benefit of people in Wales.

I turn now to the Timms review. I would welcome the Government’s continued ambition to support more young and disabled people into work by reforming the welfare system, but the changes must be based on compassion and provide effective support mechanisms for people to move into work, building on the already introduced right to try. I agree with His Majesty that we must have a system that is fair and fit for the future.

Finally, I turn to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. I welcome this Government’s continued commitment to supporting a two-state solution. We urgently need to work with partners to ensure a viable Palestinian state, alongside a secure Israel. In supporting peace efforts in the middle east, I press Ministers to call on Israel to end its continued bombing in Lebanon, which has seen over a million civilians displaced from their homes.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is now time for the Government to support the International Court of Justice’s case and call it what it is—a genocide—and to cut all diplomatic ties and end all arms licences, because Israel is a rogue state?

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. If we cut ties, we cannot communicate. The only way to a lasting peace is through communication, so we must keep communication channels open. That is the only way to a lasting peace.

I listened carefully to the King’s Speech this morning, and I am pleased to hear of the proposed 35 Bills and the actions planned. I look forward to them being delivered swiftly for working people across the UK, so that they can feel the benefits of a Labour Government working for them and with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I would like to start by associating myself with the remarks made by Mr Speaker about how we should conduct ourselves in this place: with kindness, compassion and respect, even when we disagree. I will quote Jalaluddin Rumi, a Muslim Sufi philosopher, who said:

“Before you speak, let your words pass through three gates. Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?”

I believe that if we all followed that principle here, in the other place and in our country, we would be more united and compassionate to each other.

I join Members across the House in paying tribute to the absolutely amazing speeches by the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). They spoke generously about their constituencies, and I intend to do the same, although as an independent Member I will do so without the burden of a Whip. Having said that, I am not sure that colleagues on the Government Benches feel particularly burdened by the Whip at the moment either.

I mention the lack of a Whip behind me, but that is the furthest thing from a complaint. The people of Dewsbury and Batley provided me an explicit instruction in 2024, when they returned the first independent MP to Yorkshire in more than a century, and they doubled down on that message last Thursday. Across five wards out of six on Kirklees council that I represent, 11 out of 15 elected councillors are independents. In this election, the people showed that voting for an independent is not a protest vote, but a real alternative to failed party politics. The two-party system is well and truly finished, and I will not mourn its demise if it means that we get more legislators who pick constituents over their party Whip or their rich corporate donors.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

I am the Member for Blackburn, and I too am one of the first independent Members of Parliament for my area. I am proud to represent my constituents. People up and down this country are speaking against the two-party system, because they are fed up of being spoken for and spoken at. It is time to listen to the people and to hear them. I often say this, but my policy is the people of Blackburn, my Whip is the people of Blackburn and my boss is the people of Blackburn. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I believe that every single Member in this House has a primary duty to their constituents—those who voted for them and those who did not. Every single resident in their constituency has a right to their Member representing them without fear or favour. I look forward to welcoming many more independent and independent-minded colleagues to this place in future.

As for the Gracious Speech, it contains measures that I welcome. The Hillsborough law is long overdue—a statutory duty of candour and accountability will finally begin to address a culture of institutional defensiveness that has failed families for too long. There are also meaningful steps on economic security. The small business protections Bill will tackle late payments—a crisis that is costing the UK economy £11 billion annually and closing 38 businesses every day. That is a practical reform that will make a real difference. The Government are also right to prioritise cyber-resilience. Some 43% of UK businesses experienced a cyber-attack last year, with the UK facing major attacks every week on average. This is a real and growing threat, and action is both welcome and necessary.

The Government are likewise correct to identify access to SEND provision as a key issue. Parents should not need to go through the lengthy, challenging and dispiriting process of obtaining an education, health and care plan before their children can receive the support they need. However, the Government’s proposals need to be matched with a more comprehensive plan to address the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, in order to ensure that classrooms receive the targeted interventions they need. There are clearly measures in the Gracious Speech that move us in the right direction—admittedly, they may be too little, too late in some instances, but they are welcomed none the less.

I cannot, though, ignore the measures included in this speech that I vehemently oppose. Words do not put a roof over people’s heads or food on their tables. Words do not heat homes or make work pay, and they do not end the cost of living crisis that is affecting the majority of people in our country. The Government’s actions do not address the acute nature of that crisis for many people in our constituencies.

The actions that the Government have taken need to be challenged. The continued curtailment of protest rights undermines the fundamental democratic principle of the right to dissent. If the Government continue down this path, they will stand on the wrong side of history, and the UK will be listed with other authoritarian regimes. The immigration and asylum Bill, while framed as “fair but firm”, runs the risk of introducing a system that is anything but—a system in which rights are conditional and subject to contribution, narrowly defined by income. Retrospectively doubling the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 would leave an indelible stain on this Government’s legacy. The expansion of digital ID, presented as a convenience, instead represents a wildly unpopular Orwellian shift in the relationship between citizen and state. It creates what Big Brother Watch rightly calls an “intrusive” system from “cradle to grave” that would be

“ripe for mass surveillance and more government control over people’s lives.”

These proposals risk trading away hard-won freedoms in the nebulous name of efficiency. That is a trade that this House must scrutinise and stop.

Our principles must not stop at our borders. We cannot claim—as this Government so often do—to defend the rule of law and human rights while failing to uphold those principles abroad. The UK must end weapons exports to Israel and to any other state suspected of, or shown to be, violating international humanitarian law, or accused of genocide before international courts. Our commitment to justice must be consistent, otherwise it loses all credibility.

Perhaps the greatest weakness of this King’s Speech is not what it contains, but what it leaves out. It contains no meaningful framework for AI safety, despite overwhelming evidence of the risks posed by this new technology, which is developing at an alarming rate.

An Institute for Public Policy Research report has stated that up to 8 million jobs could be lost due to AI disruption in the next three to five years. AI-exposed firms are already cutting entry-level roles and reshaping the labour market. Even more worryingly, many AI experts, including Geoffrey Hinton and more than 300 others, consider the risk of existential catastrophe as a consequence of loss-of-control scenarios to be plausible at best and likely at worst without adequate regulations and global collaboration.

Our blueprint should be the Montreal protocol. That framework helped to pause and reverse the damage to the ozone layer from the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. The world had decades to stop and reverse the harms from CFCs, but with AI, the disastrous consequences could be realised during this Parliament. The potential risk from unregulated AI could cause irreversible harm to humanity and our planet. It demands immediate and meaningful Government action to prevent these harms before it is too late.

The public is rightfully clear that it wants sustained, forceful action. A 2025 survey by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute found that 72% of the UK public reported that laws and regulations would increase their confidence in AI. However, in today’s Gracious Speech, there was no plan for governance, safety or accountability. Similarly, it offers no plan to hold social media companies to account. There is no meaningful framework for transparency, no clear standards for algorithmic responsibility, and no serious enforcement mechanism for those who flagrantly breach the rules. There is no ability to take action to ban addictive platforms or to compel safety by design.

This King’s Speech is a programme of progress in parts, problems in principle and profound omissions. It contains measures that I welcome, proposals that I must oppose, and omissions that I and others cannot ignore. It falls short of the radical action that this country needs and has been crying out for. It lacks urgency on material issues that affect people’s daily lives. It avoids hard decisions to tackle vested interests. It fails to hold power and wealth to account. It also fails to clean up politics by banning dodgy donations and revolving doors.

In conclusion, the people of Dewsbury and Batley did not send me here to be loyal to a party; they sent me here to be loyal to them and to stay true to them. In this Session, I will vote against inhumane, unjust and unfair policies wherever they appear; defend our public services and the funding they need to thrive; and give voice to my constituents of every faith or none and of every colour and creed who refuse to look away from injustice abroad. I will fight for Dewsbury sports centre, Batley baths, GP surgeries, local dentists and the buses, schools, charities and communities that hold our towns together.

Middle East

Adnan Hussain Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking across the board at what support can be put in place and at all the contingencies, but there is no escaping the fact that if we do not do the international work to de-escalate and get the strait open, we will be fighting an uphill battle, which is why we have to convene those countries and try to resolve what is a very challenging situation.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

May I join the Prime Minister in recognising and commending Pakistan’s efforts to facilitate dialogue in the pursuit of peace? It is, however, regrettable that a resolution has not yet been secured. I therefore ask him what assessment he has made of the breakdown in the US-Iran talks, of Israel’s role in the collapse of those talks, and of the ongoing strikes in Lebanon? Will he condemn the continued hostility, which is creating a fresh humanitarian crisis in a region already torn apart by Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians? Finally, does he acknowledge that it is long overdue that Israel’s aggression in the region should be forced to stop through sanctions and cutting diplomatic ties?

[The Prime Minister]

As I mentioned earlier, I spoke to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Friday ahead of the talks. We have been in touch again since the talks broke down about the very issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, which is the prospect of still trying to find a way forward. We will work with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and others to try to ensure that we get that diplomacy, as far as we can, and to de-escalate the situation in that way.

Middle East

Adnan Hussain Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

May I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with the Qataris and others to ensure that we are able to get everybody to safety and security as quickly as possible? They are evolving plans, as she will appreciate. It is a difficult situation, but I can assure her that we are doing everything we can to get people out safely—they are our first priority.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

As the Prime Minister admits, following the illegal pre-emptive strikes and the killing of Iran’s leader, Iran has become more aggressive and more unpredictable in the region. How can we possibly be assured that further strikes, further attacks and further aggression will somehow calm the situation? Britain must not contribute to another conflict whose legality is in serious doubt. Will the Prime Minister now commit unequivocally to upholding international law, to publishing the Government’s legal advice, and to pressing for an immediate ceasefire and a return to diplomacy rather than allowing the United Kingdom to be drawn into another unlawful war?

[The Prime Minister]

It is my duty to protect British nationals—300,000 of them are in the region. The hon. Member will have heard the anxiety from various Members about their constituents being trapped in that situation, only too aware of the danger that they are facing. It is my duty to ensure that the risk to them is reduced. That is why we took the action that we did over the weekend.

Digital ID

Adnan Hussain Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. It was Harry Willcock, a Liberal party activist, who started the successful campaign to get rid of physical ID cards. After being stopped and asked for his cards by the police, he threw his papers on the floor and said, “I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing.” That is because as Liberals we believe that the state exists to empower its citizens rather than endlessly monitor them. What we have before us today is yet another example of this Labour Government announcing a grand, attention-grabbing idea without really having a plan for how to do it.

The proposal for a mandatory digital ID system is set to drain at least £1.9 billion from the public purse—and if history tells us anything about major Government projects, it is that that figure is likely to rise substantially. At a time when every pound counts, it is astonishing that Ministers believe that this is the right priority. The reality is that this digital ID proposal risks becoming an enormously expensive distraction, absorbing money, time and political energy that should instead be directed towards the things that people actually rely on: police on our streets, timely NHS care, functioning local services and funding border security.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

In respect of the figures, the last time this was tried it was said that it would cost the Government £5.4 billion. Then, when independent organisations came to look at the actual figures, some said that it would cost up to £19 billion. Does the hon. Member agree that inflation goes up, not down?

[David Chadwick]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to question whether or not this is a good use of Government time and money. The 4,500 constituents of mine who have signed this petition would much rather the Government spent their time and money on trying to fix other data governance issues. For example, one big data governance issue in Wales is that, when patients go over the border to Hereford, they often cannot retrieve their health data. It would be much better if the Government prioritised spending money on that.

Some 75 years on from Harry Willcock saying that he was a Liberal and against this sort of thing, I reiterate the same principle. I am a Liberal, and we remain against this sort of thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

I completely agree. On the one hand, the Government claim there is no money left. On the other hand, they can suddenly find billions for bizarre schemes or the Chagos islands, or create policies on the two-child benefit cap that they could not previously deliver. They are just so intellectually inconsistent.

The OBR, as I say, reckons the scheme will cost £1.8 billion. Privately, Ministers are briefing that that is completely inaccurate. We have not even begun scoping it yet. I am told the Treasury and the Cabinet Office are now in a stand-off with one another about who will pay for this dreadful thing. Neither wants it, particularly as the Cabinet Office will then have to make cuts to other, much more effective digital projects, the kinds that would actually deliver better services.

No one will answer straight questions about how secure the digital ID will be, or into which areas of our lives it will creep. The Prime Minister tells us that digital ID will be mandatory only for anyone who still wants to work in Labour’s welfare Britain. Yet in the next breath he suggests that childcare, welfare and wider service access will all require it. This is precisely how state overreach begins: with reassurance in one sentence and expansion in the next.

It was very interesting to hear hon. Members making points about the police being able to access digital ID, or even about people needing it to go to the cinema. There have been no answers on the robustness of the Government’s cyber-security. This Government could not even keep their own Budget secret, and now they want us to trust them with this new system. Ministers point to Estonia and India as models, yet Estonia has suffered repeated breaches. India’s system, the largest ID system in the world, led to the largest ever data breach in the world, with citizens’ data sold on the dark web for the equivalent of £5 or £6. AI is now giving cyber-attackers the upper hand.

We have been given no sense of the extent to which digital ID will stem illegal migration, which was the Prime Minister’s excuse for introducing the idea in the first place. Ministers cannot even give an estimate, and that is for a simple reason: because it will not reduce migration. Can Ministers explain why those who enter the country by dodging the rules will suddenly become models of civic compliance, or why European ID schemes have done so little to stem illegal migration on the continent?

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

On the topic of migration, does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s claim that digital ID will curb immigration is made a farce by the Afghan data loss, a catastrophic failure of data security that ended up expanding resettlement on a large scale, which shows exactly why centralising identity data can backfire?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point. The truth is that channel crossings will continue until the Prime Minister puts in place a real deterrent and accepts that the “smash the gangs” plan is nothing more than a slogan. By pretending that his ID scheme is the answer, he fuels public distrust. When the crossings continue but law-abiding British citizens are allocated a mandatory ID, people will feel, rightly, that it is one rule for them and another for rule breakers—a loss of liberty for everyone because of a group of people who have no right to be here.

At least Ministers seem to recognise the emptiness of the migration argument, because none of them seems to use it any more. To add to the despicable dishonesty of the plan, it is now being presented as a benevolent effort to improve online services—no more rummaging for utility bills. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff even insists it will be a matter of choice whether to have a digital ID. How disingenuous! First, to oppose digital ID is not to oppose the modernisation of Government. It is not to oppose great online services for people. It is to say that we do not need a monopolistic Government ID scheme, which is mandated if people are to have those online services, and nobody should be suggesting otherwise.

The Association of Digital Verification Professionals has called what Labour inherited from our party

“a world-leading model for…data sovereignty”

that digitises liberty rather than dilutes it. In government we were able to provide trusted, simple and secure services without everyone being mandated to have a digital identity. Paper options were retained. Nobody was forced down the digital route. Privacy-preserving private identity providers, now absolutely hopping mad about Labour’s plan, are recognised as a way of giving citizens choice when it comes to digital credentials and dispersing central power.

Let us turn to the idea of choice and consent. If a Government-issued digital ID is mandatory for anyone wishing to work, then if someone wants a job they have no choice but to have one. At a time when Labour has made it more expensive and much riskier to employ people, they now want to add an extra hoop for everyone to jump through. Never mind the digital divide, either. Thousands of adults do not have smartphones. Labour has deprioritized gigabit rollout; its digital inclusion plan is a £9 million fig leaf. It is not bridging the digital divide, but widening it.

Conservatives oppose the Prime Minister’s mandatory ID plan in principle and in practice. It would alter the balance between citizen and state in a way that this Government have no mandate for. Conservatives believe that Government should empower citizens, not the other way round.

Before this House takes another step down this path, I ask the Minister to answer the following questions clearly and directly. Will the Government bring this matter before the House for a vote, and when can we expect digital identity legislation to be put before us? How much will this scheme cost? If the true figure is not £1.8 billion, what is it? Are Ministers creating a single centralised database—yes or no? Who will be forced to have a mandatory ID and from what age, because we hear that it could be mandatory from the age of 13? What personal information will be collected? Will biometrics and addresses be included? What security guarantees will the Minister put his name to when it comes to the robustness of this system? Nearly 3 million people want answers to those questions and more.

This Government have delivered nothing of what they said they would deliver— growth, political stability, competence—and delivered plenty that they never sought permission for. They are a Government who do not have the competence to run a bath, let alone a secure national identity scheme. It seems that many Labour MPs, including those in this Chamber today, now agree. Every day, they are openly jostling and gossiping about the Prime Minister’s demise. If they had any sense, they would make sure that this scheme dies with the expiry of his leadership and that any of the thrusting leadership contenders make a clear promise not to resurrect it.

The Prime Minister’s plan is unimplementable and utterly unloved, and it will be totally useless in delivering against its own objectives. So, before Labour sprays inordinate amounts of political capital and taxpayer cash on this digital ID dodo, it must wake up to that reality.

Middle East

Adnan Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree that there will be no lasting peace without a two-state outcome, and that is why we must continue to strive towards it. Of course there must be accountability for all those who have committed atrocities, including those who were involved on 7 October.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that real and lasting peace can only be achieved if there is accountability and justice? Overwhelming international consensus, both legal and scholarly, concludes that Israel’s actions in Gaza were genocidal. Does the Prime Minister agree that the perpetrators of genocide must face justice? What steps will this Government take to ensure that justice is achieved?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree that accountability and justice are important in the middle east. We are strong supporters of international law and the role that that needs to play in relation to justice in the region.