Levelling Up

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I could not agree more. I have nothing against Leeds; I love Leeds. [Hon. Members: “That’s not what it says about you!”] My name is hymned by children in Leeds streets, I know. The serious point is that there is cultural investment in Kirklees, not least in Huddersfield, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that more needs to be done for all the authorities in Kirklees and for the towns in West Yorkshire surrounding them.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The stark reality is that someone who lives in the inner city of Bradford is likely to live 10 years less than someone who lives in an affluent suburb. Although I accept that the Government plan commits to raising health and life expectancy, it does not go far enough. One of the issues is the top-down approach. I sincerely and constructively ask the Secretary of State to meet me to discuss transformative new proposals that are being put forward by local grassroots community groups in Bradford to change health inequalities and to address the real issue.

Definition of Islamophobia

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mrs Murray. My difficulty is that I cannot do any justice to this debate in two minutes, so please bear with me. I can certainly assure you that I will not take as long as the previous speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for securing this important and pertinent debate. I thank all individuals and campaign groups who bravely fight to raise awareness of Islamophobia and tackle it in our society on a daily basis. I also thank Bradford Council for Mosques, which this week celebrated a proud 40 years of serving our communities. I want to take this moment to commend its work, commitment and leadership, not just in Bradford but on a regional level.

Sadly, I cannot speak in this debate without feeling a deep sense of frustration and disappointment because, since we last debated this issue, Islamophobia has continued to run rife in our society. It has continued to blight our communities and, sadly, has not got any better. Indeed, the campaign group Tell MAMA last year reported that the UK had seen a rise of almost 700% in Islamophobic incidents. Let us take a minute just to take that in: a 700% rise. That is borne out by the sickening stories that people tell me of Muslim men, women and even children of all ages, in my constituency and across the country, who still face Islamophobic attacks and Islamophobic persecution on a daily basis, who are still subject to vile abuse because of their religion, and who are still told go home—even in the very town where they were born and raised.

It is a sad day when we have my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) reduced to tears for merely trying to do her job. That my hon. Friend, as one of the youngest Members, has come here and told this House that she feels she is unable to carry out her job as a democratically elected Member of Parliament is shocking and disgusting. We must all hang our heads in shame over the appalling treatment of my hon. Friend and Members like her.

At the heart of the issue is the normalisation of Islamophobia in our society. I accept the definition; I will not get into debates about a definition. The reality is the vile poison that has spread. We have seen the creation of a culture that tells people that it is acceptable to discriminate against, to persecute, to abuse Muslims because everyone else seems to be doing it. It has spread because it has been actively promoted in the rhetoric espoused in the media, and by countless public figures who reinforce over and over again a false narrative that Muslims are dangerous, and second-class citizens in our society. It has spread because it has been pushed and endorsed even by our own politicians—even by the Prime Minister, who thinks it is okay to describe Muslim women as “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”—as well as by many others who are in the public eye, talking down Muslims, treating us as a policing and social problem and promoting divisive policies that disproportionately target Muslims, such as Prevent. It has spread because society has normalised it, and that is the real problem.

Indeed, the normalisation of Islamophobia has now reached the point where it has become so commonplace and trivialised that, even if we do not see an active discrimination against Muslims that manifests in the most extreme way as violence and a vitriolic hatred by racists and bigots, we still experience a bias against us that sees Muslims denied employment opportunities, taken less seriously, and talked down to, because it has now become so endemic and so institutionalised that it has become subconscious discrimination. This normalisation is therefore as big a threat as the far right, because it creates an atmosphere on which far-right thugs and fascists feed—an environment in which they feel welcome, and in which bigoted Islamophobia can flourish unchallenged.

Mrs Murray, I am looking at the clock. I have a lot to say, but I will cut it short because of your request. The last thing I will say is this. If we are serious about tackling Islamophobia—this is where I agree with the point made earlier—we must move on from discussing the definition. We have spent the last two years talking about a definition, but that has not stopped Islamophobia. The point is that we need a definition in legislation. At the moment when these matters go to judges in courtrooms, they are not obliged to take it into account; it is a mitigating factor that they may take into account if they so wish. We need to legislate against this, which was the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Peterborough. We must stop talking and start acting—acting to stop religiously and racially motivated hate through legislation and acting, as a society, to challenge and tackle the vile and appalling normalisation of Islamophobia.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

You have three minutes, Afzal Khan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on obtaining this urgent and timely debate. I thank all colleagues who have spoken. It has been a sterling debate. I particularly want to touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) was saying. I do not know if it will help her, but many of us Muslim women have been abused in a similar format. I have had emails and messages on social media saying that I am, and I quote, words beginning with “f” and “b”, and that I should be sent off to Saudi Arabia to be raped. There are all kinds of interesting words being used and letters written. That does not help, but I hope that she understands.

Islamophobia has been rising in this country and in the western world at a very disturbing rate in recent years. Despite this, as we have heard today, there is still no accepted definition of Islamophobia. There are three million Muslims in the UK—almost 5% of our overall population. Despite Muslims having been present in this country as far back as the 16th century, many believe they are treated as the other. Islamophobia permeates all domains of our society. It threatens education, limits employment prospects and impacts everyday issues, including health, wellbeing and housing.

It is time that we finally address the issue. In 2019, the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims worked tirelessly to create a definition of Islamophobia that was widely applauded and supported by over 750 organisations. As was mentioned, the definition has been adopted by the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party, the Mayor of London and the Mayor of Greater Manchester. It has been debated in this House and has received cross-party support, so it is disappointing that two years later, we are still urging the Government to do the right thing. That is an absolute denial from this Government. To add insult to injury, they cannot even bring themselves to use the term “Islamophobia”.

In May, the Singh report, resulting from an independent investigation into the handling of Islamophobia by the Conservative party, was published. It was a damning indictment of the discrimination rife in the party. It found that Islamophobia is a serious issue for it, and that the concerns had too easily been denied or dismissed. Indeed, it even looked at the Prime Minister’s comments about women wearing burqas looking like “letterboxes” and “bank robbers”, which we have heard a lot about. It found that Islamophobic incidents of hate rose by 375% in the week after the Prime Minister made those comments. The report called for the party leadership to publish an action plan to set out how it will tackle the failings it found. Will the Minister today acknowledge the scale of the problem? Will he update us on the progress his party has made on the action plan and the new code of conduct?

In my party, I pay tribute to the work of the Labour Muslim Network, which brought to our attention its findings and concerns about Islamophobia. Unlike the leadership of the Conservative party, we are seriously committed to tackling and eradicating Islamophobia, both in our party and in society.

We are often told by critics of the APPG’s definition that it should not imply that some Islamophobia is rooted in racism, yet the evidence says otherwise. Last year, the largest number of referrals to the Government Prevent programme related to far-right extremism. Indeed, the Security Minister warned that far-right terror poses a growing threat, and we all know the consequences of that ideology.

A recent report by Hope Not Hate found that Islamophobia has become the driving force behind the rise of far-right movements in the UK, and that anti-Muslim prejudice has replaced immigration as the key driver of such groups. A poll found that 35% of Britons think that Islam is generally a threat to the British way of life. We see this happening globally, and particularly in western Europe, where there has been a rise of far-right political parties and discriminatory laws passed in France and other countries. Earlier this year, a UN expert concluded at the UN Human Rights Council that Islamophobia has reached epidemic proportions globally, and that Muslims are often targeted because of visible characteristics, such as names, skin colour and clothing.

Many, including this Government, argue that Muslims are not a race. Of course they are not a race, but they are racialised when they are treated as having characteristics that mark them as wholly different. The question when it comes to racism is whether there is a set of attitudes and behaviours that are socially widespread and used to justify discrimination against a particular group. That is why it makes sense to call antisemitism and Islamophobia forms of racism.

I am the chair of the APPG on religion in the media, and last year we conducted an inquiry on religious literacy in the British media. Our report found that media reporting can be sensationalist, and that it reinforces stereotypes and contributes towards discriminatory attitudes. Headlines such as “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis” and references to “Muslim problems” have real-world consequences. Of course, journalists should be able to question and criticise religion—we live in a democracy that values freedom of speech—but this is about not censorship but transparency. We ask the Government to consider looking at press regulation, because the current system of self-regulation is not working.

Does the Minister at least accept the inescapable reality, which is that Islamophobia has damaging consequences for the life chances of and equalities enjoyed by British Muslim communities? There are people in the UK who are scared to leave their home for fear of verbal or physical attacks. People have withdrawn from public services, with devastating knock-on consequences for their health and education. They feel like outsiders in their own country. That should shame us all.

Last year, in the other place, when the Government were asked about the progress that they had made on adopting a definition, they said that the definition proposed by the APPG was not compatible with the Equality Act 2010, which treats race and religion separately, and

“could have consequences for freedom of speech.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 2020; Vol. 801, c. 2337.]

Can the Minister tell us whether he or the Government have published for public scrutiny any evidence regarding the legal advice that suggests that the APPG definition is incompatible with the Act? It has been repeatedly noted by experts that the working definition of Islamophobia is not legally binding, and therefore presents no challenges to statute, which takes legal precedence. I ask the Minister not to revert to the predictable, rehearsed responses and platitudes that we have heard from the Government. Each time they do that, they show their disdain for the British Muslim community.

In this debate, the ask is simple: adopt this definition, which has been accepted by cross-party MPs, national groups and hundreds of organisations. In some respects, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood). We need a definition because it will be a starting point for addressing the real issue of Islamophobia that we face in this country. Islamophobia is rising not just in the United Kingdom but in France, Austria and other parts of the western world. Muslims are being treated as though they are fifth columnists—as though they do not belong in this society.

I referred to our inquiries on media coverage. I do not want to restrict free speech—I am sure nobody here wants to—but we ask the Government to look at cases in which the newspapers and others publish pure lies. There is a difference between covering something and carrying blatant lies, like the story about one in five Muslims having sympathy for Isis, or The Sunday Times coverage of a Muslim family who had adopted a child in the east end of London, which turned out to be completely made up.

Those kinds of stories cause people to view Muslims with suspicion and lead to hatred towards Muslims. Let us face it: a lot of people will probably never meet a Muslim in their life, and their understanding of what a Muslim is comes from what they read in the newspaper or watch on the television. Therefore what our media, social media, press and others say is an important part of this debate.

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend makes a really valuable and pertinent point. Does she agree that the situation is far worse than that? We see Islamophobic tropes increasing under the guise of freedom of speech. Would she agree that freedom of speech is not an absolute right? It does not give you a right to promote hatred, and it certainly does not give you a carte-blanche right to attack Muslims.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady sum up now?

Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 General Committees

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I start by paying tribute to the campaigning and work of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, as acknowledged by the Minister. It has been instrumental to the introduction of this amendment to the Employment Rights Act through its legal challenge on behalf of thousands of members in insecure work and the gig economy.

It was only through the IWGB’s work that these vital fundamental employment rights that most employees take for granted have been extended to limb (b) workers and those in the gig economy, because without the High Court ruling in the union’s favour, it is extremely doubtful that the Government would implemented this extension. Indeed, the Secretaries of State for BEIS and for Work and Pensions challenged the IWGB’s case in the High Court instead of extending the rights that should be afforded to workers under EU directives, as agreed under the withdrawal agreement, only to be defeated. As a result of the challenge and the delay that it created between concerns first being raised by the IWGB at the start of the pandemic and the High Court’s ruling in November 2020, many months have been lost in which the protections could have been extended, leaving working people without adequate rights or protections regarding health and safety matters during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.

The pandemic has been devastating for all, but particularly for those in insecure work and the gig economy, who do not share the same employment rights as those with employee status, to which the Minister alluded. For months they continued to work because they had no rights to fall back on and because they needed to work in order to make enough to get by, often putting in long hours in public-facing roles or jobs that brought them into contact with large numbers of people. According to the TUC, covid-19 mortality rates were twice as high for these workers than for those in secure employment.

Today is International Workers’ Memorial Day, on which we remember all those who have lost their lives in the workplace or in the course of their job, and it is worth noting that the Government have acted far too slowly to protect many thousands of workers in insecure work and in the gig economy.

This instrument clearly demonstrates once more just how much we need a new employment rights settlement that provides a clear universal definition of employment status, which the latest Labour manifesto called for, so that employment rights are afforded to all workers from day one and that the bogus self-employment that is used by many employers in the gig economy to exploit their workforces can be brought to an end. A universal definition would give certainty, security and stability to working people at a time when insecure, precarious employment runs rampant in our economy unchecked by this Government, who are happy to let the courts step in to deliver justice for working people rather than taking action themselves. Such a definition would strengthen people’s rights at work.

Despite being promised well over a year ago in 2019 Queen’s Speech, the long-awaited, much-delayed employment rights Bill is yet to materialise. It seems trapped in a permanent state of “in due course” according to official responses from this Minister and others. Such a Bill would offer us the chance to deliver a real, positive change and strengthen workers’ rights. It would allow us to correct the inconsistencies and injustices that the IWGB and others have highlighted. The Minister should be able to commit to its inclusion in next month’s Queen’s Speech, and I hope he acknowledges that today.

In conclusion, we support this instrument today, but we lament the Government’s decision to challenge the matter in the High Court and the length of time it has taken them to correct this injustice—a delay which will have cost the lives of many workers during the covid-19 pandemic. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government introduce their promised instrument relating to the PPE directive—I hope that it is not also left in a state of “in due course”—and, hopefully, a robust employment rights Bill without delay.

Fire and Rehire

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is, of course, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I declare my interest as a member of Unite, GMB and Unison.

I join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) for securing this important debate on fire and rehire tactics and for the timely manner in which she has done so, with the outrageous firing of hundreds of British Gas employees earlier this month, just because they refused to be bullied by management into signing contracts that put them on worse pay, and worse terms and conditions. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about that case and the abusive bullying behaviour of British Gas’s management. She made a sound contribution that delivered a strong defence of workers’ rights and the protections that should be afforded to them, but which sadly this Government have denied them. My only regret is that we are having to have this debate following this mass firing at British Gas because the Government would not step in when they should have properly done so.

I thank my hon. Friends for their passionate contributions. Let us be honest: the point has been made that it is only Members on the Opposition side who have contributed because the Government could not even convince their own Back Benchers to turn up to defend the fire and rehire tactics that have become endemic on their watch. There is not only the cases of their own constituents who have faced fire and rehire tactics, but the use of these tactics by major companies that have continued to make a profit throughout the pandemic.

We must remember that fire and rehire tactics are not a new phenomenon, a point that has been made in this debate. They had been around long before the coronavirus pandemic. However, the increasingly precarious nature of our economy and the Government’s refusal to do anything about it, along with the uncertainty created by the pandemic, have given unscrupulous employers the cover they need. Let us be clear: the employers making use of these frankly deplorable tactics are unscrupulous—there are simply no two ways about it.

Under the threat of permanent dismissal at a time when the jobs market could not be more challenging, these unscrupulous employers are bullying their staff into signing away their original contract. They are bullying them into signing a replacement contract where pay is lower, rights are weaker and conditions less favourable, and they are shoving those inferior contracts down the throats of their workers, who know full well that they cannot refuse without being fired for good, as we saw at British Gas.

Despite that despicable behaviour, and the fact that such shameful tactics amount to nothing more than legalised blackmail of staff by employers, fire and rehire inexplicably remains perfectly legal under the Government, and big businesses such as Tesco and the coffee giant Douwe Egberts, which have seen rising profits during the lockdown, are continuing shamelessly to use them.

As a result, those who cannot stand up to their employers and have to begrudgingly accept the new contracts face incredible hardship, going from a job that often comfortably supported them and their families to now being forced to rely on food banks, handouts and social security to make ends meet. Indeed, we all saw the heart-breaking stories during the industrial action taken by GMB members at British Gas where engineers made it clear that they were not striking for themselves but for the young children they needed to support. Fire and rehire tactics do not just leave workers worse off; they leave their families worse off too.

However, fire and rehire tactics are not just bad for working people, who are told to work harder but at the same time paid less; they are bad for our economy too. By being able to change contracts on a whim, fire and rehire tactics are allowing bad employers to thrive and get ahead, cutting wages even at a time when many of them are making bumper profits because of the lockdown. As a result, good employers that look after their staff, pay them good wages and offer favourable conditions are being squeezed out, unable to compete with the bad employers. That is hardly the positive example of levelling up or building back better, as the Prime Minister has pledged time and again. That is why the Labour party, the trade unions and working people up and down the country have been calling on the Government to step in and act, to deliver the legislation that will bring a final, definitive end to the use of fire and rehire tactics for good, just as has been done in Ireland and Spain, as we have heard.

Instead of outlawing fire and rehire, all the Government have been able to offer are warm words and consultation—a point that has been made by a number of hon. Members. Warm words, however, do not pay bills, keep roofs over people’s head or put food on the table. As we saw at British Gas, warm words do not keep people in employment. The consultation that the Government have commissioned with ACAS still has not been published weeks after reporting back to base, with findings reportedly still being considered. I say to the Minister that this is not difficult. The findings and recommendations of the ACAS consultation are obvious for all: fire and rehire is bad for everyone. The Government should ban it, so why are they dragging their feet and what are they waiting for?

Last week, the Prime Minister spoke of dropping a “legislative bomb” to stop the European football super league, so they can act when they want to. However, he cannot even muster as much as a legislative firecracker to stop fire and rehire. Only last Wednesday, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister could not even remember the GMB dispute with British Gas and the mass firing of workers who refused to be bullied. No one should ever try to tell us that this Prime Minister is in touch with working people.

Instead of the Government looking out for employment rights, it has again fallen to trade unions to protect working people and to oppose bully-boy tactics. Unite secured a resolution of the dispute with British Airways and continues to oppose Go North West’s buses plans, and the GMB had a valiant fight to protect jobs and livelihoods at British Gas, but their job is made harder by the fact that the Government will not step in to help them by giving the vital legal backing that they need.

The use of fire-and-rehire tactics by unscrupulous employers is a stain on our economy. The contributions made by hon. Members during this important debate make one thing clear: we cannot just temporarily stop the use of fire-and-rehire tactics during this pandemic; we need to end them for good. To that end, the Government must introduce proper legislation, backed by real enforcement, before it is too late—before we see another big bully-boy employer such as British Gas lay off staff and impose new contracts, dismissing the rest who refuse to be bullied.

The Minister must confirm, as I hope he will and as we have called for, that the Government will bring forward such a measure as a matter of priority in the long-awaited and much-delayed employment Bill in next month’s Queen’s Speech. If he does not give a proper response today and resorts to a wishy-washy one—frankly, a trademark of this Government—the consequences for every worker who has been blackmailed and bullied, every family forced to turn to food banks, and every child forced into poverty, will land firmly at his Government’s doors.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Minister, will you leave a couple of minutes at the end for the person in charge of the debate to conclude?

Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) regulations 2021

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 General Committees

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under chairmanship, Sir David. I echo the thanks from the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree who has done significant work on this matter and has an outstanding private Member’s Bill that addresses some of the issues that we are addressing today.

The regulations are not contentious and I hope that the Minister will agree that raising the minimum wage—the wage that some of the poorest in our society are paid—should never be contentious. We welcome any rise in the minimum wage and we also recognise the step in the right direction made by the change within the regulations, which will see a reduction in the age at which an individual is eligible to be paid the full rate from the age of 25 to 23.

Broadly, therefore, the regulations have our support. However, let us remember that when the Government speak of increases in the minimum wage, it was indeed a Labour Government who introduced the national minimum wage in the first place, and that when the Government pat themselves on the back for introducing, in their words, a national living wage, it is actually no such thing. The living wage is currently set at £9.50, and at £10.85 an hour in London, by the Living Wage Foundation, taking into account a range of living costs and considerations, compared with the Government’s rate of £8.91 an hour.

We recognise that the increases in the different rates of the national minimum wage for different age groups come at the recommendation of the independent Low Pay Commission, as highlighted by the Minister, and that the Government tasked the Commission with recommending the increases required to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024. However, for too many workers with high costs of living, particularly in the capital and other urban areas, this increase may not prove sufficient to match their rising costs, particularly during this pandemic, when we have seen those on the lowest end of the pay scale being hit the hardest. Instead, the last Labour manifesto set out an ambitious but achievable goal of introducing a national minimum wage for all employees by 2020, creating a real living wage whereby everyone is rewarded with a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

We also recognise the above-inflation rise for apprentices, who are woefully underpaid, and we hope that this increase will not end there and will also be matched by a real ambition to boost the number of quality apprenticeships across the country. The Government should seriously consider using the underspend in the apprenticeship levy to help pay the wages of new apprentices directly in order to boost take-up, as those of us on the Labour Benches have advocated many times. An apprentice is an investment by an employer in their local economy and their workforce, and employers must always be encouraged to treat them as an investment and not as low-paid, disposable labour.

Although reducing the age limit at which an individual is eligible for the full rate of the national minimum wage is, of course, also a step in the right direction, the Government have still retained the age limit. This retention fails to acknowledge that those under the age of 23 face many of the same pressures as those faced by someone over the age of 23. Many young people below the age of 23 still have to make rent, cover bills and put food on their tables, and it is wrong that they are being held back because the Government and employers do not believe that their contribution to society and to the economy is worth the full rate of the national minimum wage. Therefore, the Government should look closely at scrapping this ridiculous age limit. Those below the age of 23 are more likely to spend their wages than put them away in savings, which will put money back into our local economies at exactly the same time that we need to bolster consumer spending, in order to recover from the present crisis and get the country back on its feet.

The regulations also increase the time limit for which employers are required to retain records for the purpose of enforcement of the national minimum wage from three years to six years, following a recommendation from the Director of Labour Market Enforcement. Again, this change is, of course, welcome.

Underpayment of the national minimum wage remains a serious problem, which sees unscrupulous employers exploiting their workforce, particularly in certain sectors of the economy, such as the care sector, and we should rightly clamp down on practices that see staff being cheated of their pay. However, we note that this was a recommendation put forward by the now departed Director of Labour Market Enforcement, who left his post last month. His post remains unfilled, despite his offering to remain in the position over an interim period. Allowing this post to remain vacant during a pandemic in which many workers, and predominantly those on the lowest end of the pay scale, are being exploited is a grave oversight by the Government, particularly when we know that so many employers are trying to circumvent minimum wage rules and so few punishments for doing so have been handed down.

In conclusion, we will not oppose the regulations. However, we must leave ourselves in no doubt that, although any rise in the minimum wage is a positive thing, those proposed in the regulations will not be the answer to the endemic problem of low pay in our economy, and nor will they help deliver the transformation that our economy desperately needed even before this crisis. It will also not solve the ills that are faced by many workers in low-paid roles, who face disproportionately higher living costs and who have to pay a poverty premium, whereby they are financially penalised just for being poor. We therefore urge the Government to look at the remit and scope of the LPC—particularly during these pressing times, in which those who are on low pay have been hit the hardest—and to scrap the age limits for the minimum wage to ensure that all are paid fairly for their work, regardless of age.

Criminal Law

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I want to deal first with the second measure to which the Minister referred, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2019, which is a technical instrument to ensure that the measures in the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019 will extend to those serving consecutive sentences. It amends what would effectively be an inconsistency in sentencing, and we will not oppose it.

I turn to the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019, which will probably be the main subject of our debate. The Government’s stated objectives for the order—to increase public safety and public confidence in the sentencing regime—are ones that the Opposition fully share. I am sure that there is absolute agreement across the House with the principle that serious and dangerous offenders who pose a risk to the public must serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes and keep the public safe. On that basis, we will not oppose the order, but we have some issues.

The Government have not demonstrated why this change is the best way to protect the public. On the evidence that we have been presented with so far, we feel that the case for supporting this order has not been made. This Government have been in power for almost 10 years, and over those 10 years, if they had possessed the desire or drive to increase the public’s confidence in the sentencing regime, and, most importantly, to protect the public, they could have taken action to do that.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about reoffending rates. May I remind him that the reoffending rate for young males under the last Labour Government was 70%?

[Imran Hussain]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the fact of the matter is that in the last 10 years, this Government have enacted policies that at best ignore the impact on public safety, and at worst actively undermine it. Cuts to the police service have led to frontline police officer numbers being slashed and to forces being under-resourced elsewhere. My police force in West Yorkshire has had its budget cut by £140 million since 2010. We have seen cuts to the Prison Service; prison officer numbers have fallen by a quarter between 2010 and 2015, which has left many of our prisons—including high-security prisons—being staffed by inexperienced officers. We have seen an ill-advised decision to break up the probation service, with catastrophic consequences—something that the whole House now accepts—and just days ago, we were found to be leaving the public less safe as a result of under-staffing and overloading with casework.

Prosecution and conviction rates for serious offences have stalled. That has been driven by these cuts to important services that work to keep reoffending down and the public safe. Most alarmingly, prosecution and conviction rates for the offence of rape have fallen by 32% and 26% respectively in a year, creating a situation that women’s groups say effectively amounts to the decriminalisation of rape. Reoffending rates across the whole range of offences remain stubbornly high, with proven reoffending rates for sexual offences fluctuating at about 14% between 2006-07 and 2016-17. The figures for violence against the person offences have increased from 20% to 26%.

Under this Government, the public are less safe. Faced with such a record, we and the public should rightly be sceptical when the Government talk about cutting crime and keeping the public safe. To try to correct their abysmal record and create an impression that they are tough on crime, the Government have brought forward this order, but even they know that it will not be enough to overturn the problems that they have created. Taken on its own, it will increase neither public confidence nor public safety, and it is far from the silver bullet that the Prime Minister would like to praise it as being.

Throughout this process, the Government have consistently failed to make the case for the order and its implementation. As their own impact assessment and explanatory note point out, judges already have powers akin to the ones set out in this order for dangerous offenders. They have the ability to hand down extended determinate sentences, which not only require an offender to serve longer in custody, but are subject to the double lock of the requirement that the parole board be satisfied the offender is no longer a danger to the public before they are released. Conveniently for the Government, however, Ministers seem to have been remiss in telling the public about that when talking about the action they are taking.

Instead of the Government bringing in such measures without properly making the case for them, and without showing evidence that supports their proposal, they should get serious and tell us how they will reduce the rampant overcrowding and violence in our prisons; how they will increase the quality and availability of real, purposeful activity both in prisons and in the community; how they will deliver an effective probation service that is not hampered by the Government’s failed privatisation agenda, which has proven so disastrous; and for non-violent and non-sexual offenders, how they will deal with the number of ineffective super-short sentences that their own evidence, in the report the Ministry of Justice published last year, shows lead to more people becoming victims of crime than if effective alternatives were used. The Minister accepted that earlier.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member agree that letting violent and sexual offenders back on the streets after they have served just half their sentence is clearly letting victims down?

[Imran Hussain]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that I made it absolutely clear at the beginning that we are in full agreement that serious and dangerous offenders who pose a risk to the public must serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes and keep the public safe. The point we are making—I will go on to make it, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me—is that this is a missed opportunity. Quite frankly, there are so many underlying issues that are not being addressed, and as I have said, the order will not single-handedly achieve the objectives mentioned.

We are concerned about the additional pressures that the order will place on an already overstretched Prison and Probation Service. That point was made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who does not appear to be in his place now, but is a learned Member and comes with some experience. The probation service, without sufficient places or staff, will be forced to do the same level of rehabilitative work with offenders after their release, but in the shorter time before the end of their licence period.

The Government have not made the case for this order. To do so, they could have brought forward a comprehensive plan to deal with the additional burden the order will place on our already overstretched Prison and Probation Service—evidence shows that is the most effective way to protect the public—but they did not. We urge the Government to look into and address these issues, and to ensure that prisons have the investment and support they need to meet the needs of their existing population.

The Government must also ensure that the forthcoming changes to the probation service see it better funded and better supported, so it can return to being the award-winning service, protecting the public, that it was before the Conservative party made the disastrous decision to break up and part-privatise probation. The Government must ensure that the Parole Board is sufficiently respected and resourced to deal with release decisions for the most serious offenders and keep the public safe.

This order is ultimately a missed opportunity for the Government. It is a missed opportunity to bring forward a comprehensive and evidence-led sentencing reform package that would make the changes necessary to reduce the number of victims of crime, and to begin to allow the public to regain confidence in our crumbling justice system.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

I am just concluding now; the hon. Gentleman has missed his chance to intervene.

This order is also a missed opportunity to set out measures that will increase public safety, such as boosting the resources available to the probation service, retaining experienced prison officers and returning our prisons to safe staffing levels, and increasing the availability of real, purposeful activity and rehabilitation programmes in prison and in the community. Instead, we see this piece- meal, headline-seeking approach from the Government, which does not address the crisis in our justice system.

Fundamentally, the Government have failed properly to make the case for this order, by failing to demonstrate that it is the most effective way to keep the public safe and protect victims of crime. We will therefore not support the order this afternoon.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Assisted Dying Law

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is, of course, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing this very important debate. Although I may not personally agree with her conclusion, as many of us across the House do not, I must credit her with having set out a passionate and robust case, both this afternoon and in her recent article.

I thank other hon. Members for attending—certainly, for a Thursday afternoon, this is probably one of the largest attendances I have seen in this Chamber—and for their own moving and thought-provoking contributions. We have heard many moving and personal accounts. Many of our thoughts and beliefs, and much of what drives our opinions, on this important topic come from our own personal experiences and stories. In this debate and the debate last year, hon. Members spoke powerfully of friends and family members at the end of their lives, or of constituents at the end of theirs. Bound together with our mortality and the fact that some day each of us here will pass on, hoping to do so as peacefully as possible, those experiences are what make this such a personal and hard-hitting issue.

Across the Opposition, across the Chamber and indeed across the country, as we have heard, we are split on the issue of assisted dying, with clear arguments advocated on either side of the divide. For those advocating a change in the law on assisted dying, important and pertinent points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Time does not permit me to go through contributions from each hon. Member, but one of the first arguments put forward is that of personal liberty—that relaxing the law would grant an individual control over their own death when it would otherwise be cruelly taken away from them by a terminal illness; and that it would allow them to end what is often incredible suffering, which leaves them with little to no quality of life and forces others to watch helplessly, witnessing the decline of their friend or relative right in front of them. We have heard some very personal experiences of that here today.

The argument that to legalise assisted dying would also spare loved ones the fear of conviction for their compassion, as we have seen with a number of cases such as those of Zoë Marley and Mavis Eccleston, has also been put forward. It will continue to be, for I doubt whether anyone here, regardless of what our views may be, really wants to see an elderly grandmother or others prosecuted for honest acts of compassion. That is joined by an argument that adequate safeguards could be applied to prevent abuses of the process and protect vulnerable people, with several examples of countries and states that have legalised assisted dying put forward as a model for the UK to copy.

However, for every argument made in favour of relaxing the law on assisted dying, a counter-argument is advanced, as it has been by hon. Members in this and previous debates. Those who oppose change point out that legalising assisted dying could lead to an abuse of the system and to pressure being applied, even unintentionally, to those suffering from terminal illness. They may feel that they are, or will become, a burden on their friends, family and carers, leaving them, in their eyes, with no real choice but to end their own life in a selfless act to spare others. That point was made by a number of hon. Members.

Hon. Members also raised the point that to relax the law on assisted dying now would slowly allow an escalation in what is allowed, creating a slippery slope whereby the eventual outcomes are far beyond the reality originally imagined by those who advocate for change. They argued that assisted dying would put immense pressure and stress on doctors and families, and even on individuals themselves.

[Karin Smyth]

Some of the phrases that my hon. Friend has used are used across the world, although there is no evidence for many of those things—for example, that there is a “slippery slope”. Does that not reinforce the idea that, whatever people think, if we can persuade the Government to look at the call for evidence, we can air these issues publicly and get the real evidence in a process that the public, and all who participate in such care, can recognise as rigorous? That call for evidence is the real thing we should be focusing on.

[Imran Hussain]

I thank my hon. Friend for being a strong and passionate advocate in this area. I think the whole House will acknowledge her work on this subject. A call for further evidence or an independent inquiry can only be of assistance to the broader debate. We cannot forget that the ethical and practical issues, and the threat of a slippery slope, have left even medical professionals reluctant to back any changes to the existing legislation on assisted dying.

Despite the clearly differing views in the House and in society, we are united on the principle that everyone should be able to pass on in peace, surrounded by family, friends and fond memories. That brings me to palliative and end-of-life care for those with terminal conditions, for at the heart of this debate is the matter of dignity. Indeed, much of the argument in favour of assisted dying is about the real fear faced by those approaching the end of their lives that they will lose control, that they will have their dignity taken away from them and that they will suffer in pain in their final days, weeks and months.

Sadly, for too many, that fear becomes a reality as insufficient palliative and end-of-life care, too much variation in practice and poor management of symptoms leave those who are at the end of their lives, and their friends and families, suffering unnecessarily. As I pointed out last year, the Institute for Public Policy Research found that there was considerable scope to improve the way that care is designed and delivered for those reaching the end of their lives, and that the experience faced by such people can still be poor, with medical and care staff sometimes failing to recognise that people are dying and failing to respond to their needs appropriately.

The IPPR also found that too few people were offered the opportunity to end their lives in the comfort of their own home, surrounded by their friends and family, and not in a hospital, surrounded by strangers fighting for every last breath. While talking about the pros and cons of relaxing the law on assisted dying—the arguments for and against—we must talk more about how palliative and end-of-life care is not nearly as good as it should be, and how that drives so many people to consider taking their own lives.

Time not permitting, I will sum up. I firmly agree—this is probably not a statement I will make often—with the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who stated in response to questions in a previous debate on this issue that this is a matter of conscience and must be decided by Parliament. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) indicated, for a matter to be considered properly, we must be properly informed and have as much information as possible.

I outlined my personal view at the beginning of this speech, and I believe that this is a matter of conscience that must be decided by the whole of Parliament. However, I hope that we can address some of the real issues at the heart of the debate—insufficient palliative and end-of-life care, and allowing those who are reaching the end of their lives to die peacefully and painlessly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about connectivity, and he will know that I visited Dudley recently to hear about those issues directly. That is why £215 million of the transforming cities fund has been made available to the West Midlands Combined Authority to support extending the midlands metro tram links to Brierley Hill, enhancing accessibility across the Black Country and helping to drive growth.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on levels of local authority service delivery of the removal of deprivation measures from the local government funding formula.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

The Government have consulted on changes to the local authority funding formula and have heard from over 300 bodies. We are in the process of digesting those responses and will of course listen carefully to what the sector has said.

[Imran Hussain]

I am somewhat astonished that the Secretary of State and the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and keep a straight face while downplaying local government cuts. My local authority, Bradford Council, has been decimated by nine years of Tory austerity, which has stripped vital services of funding and dragged hundreds of our children into poverty. Does the Minister really think that cutting funding further and devasting our communities is an example of fair funding?

[Rishi Sunak]

As I have already said, funding in aggregate for local authorities has gone up, but it is worth bearing in mind too that funding for the hon. Gentleman’s local authority is up this year. I have noticed also that its spending power per household is higher than the average for metropolitan districts. Indeed, in Bradford’s latest accounts it boasts of the area having

“Better skills, more good jobs and a growing economy”.

This Government are backing local councils to deliver for their local communities and will continue to do so.

Definition of Islamophobia

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mahmood]

No. I must make tracks as time is limited.

This person went out there, but some people would look at her and probably not think that she is a Muslim. People can hide these things.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I rise genuinely to try to assist my hon. Friend in putting forward his views. Surely he is not implying—I know he is not—that those who choose to dress or look a certain way are in any way abnormal.

[Mr Mahmood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. Of course I am not. I am saying that the definition of Muslimness as described in the report categorises people into those who dress a particular way and those who do not. By definition, the people who do not dress one way are excluded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

First, I thank all those who have taken part in this important debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) for securing it. We in this House have an absolute duty to eliminate all forms of hate crime and discrimination.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), and perhaps others, have referred to personal experiences. I believe it takes guts and great courage to refer to personal situations in this place. Tragically, in the current political climate, many politicians and public servants in the frontline are being subjected to some atrocious behaviour, and I salute the courage of those who speak out. I, like many others, constantly receive Islamophobic hate mail and other expressions of Islamophobia, but I refuse to recount those instances here today. I refuse to give air time to those who want people like me to air their views—their views of hatred and division—in this place. I refuse to do that here today.

Of course we need a definition of Islamophobia—on that much, I think everyone can agree. There are a number of definitions, starting with the Runnymede definition; then there is the all-party group’s definition, and I know that in my home town Bradford’s Council for Mosques is working on a definition. All those are important, but it is the aim of them all that I want to focus on. The aim of the definition is to eradicate Islamophobia, and that is where I want to concentrate my remarks. We cannot eradicate Islamophobia if we do not understand Islamophobia. That is the point.

This debate takes place against a disgusting backdrop of rising Islamophobic hate crime. Over half of all religiously motivated hate crimes recorded in 2017-18—almost 3,000—were committed against Muslims. Although abusive behaviour forms the core of recorded Islamophobia, we cannot downplay the number and severity of the physical attacks, many of the offences being of an extremely serious nature. Even at mosques and other places of worship, where Muslims should feel safe, they face both physical and verbal abuse and violence, with the number of attacks on mosques doubling and Muslims being left scared and vulnerable.

We simply cannot ignore the stark evidence facing us that Islamophobia is dramatically on the rise. We certainly cannot do so at a time when we are witnessing the rapid resurgence of far-right, fascist, white supremacist groups now fixated on persecuting Muslims and promoting Islamophobia. Those groups are pushing bigoted, xenophobic views of Muslims and others, and they are not only feeding on, but driving, an environment where it is now seen as acceptable to abuse and attack Muslims. With growing traffic to far-right websites and social media personalities, a growing number of foiled far-right terror plots and a membership that is younger and more extreme than before, the far right is now a key threat. Let us make no mistake about that.

None of this is surprising given the rhetoric espoused by the media and public figures, as was alluded to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), but it is an absolute disgrace when Members of this House and the other place join in this divisive rhetoric, reinforcing the false narrative that Muslims are dangerous, second-class citizens and creating an atmosphere in which Islamophobia not only flourishes unchallenged but is actively promoted. By doing so, they have normalised Islamophobia. There is now so little accountability, self-awareness, guilt or shame that Islamophobic comments are not just accepted but casually tossed around as though absolutely fine.

The normalisation of Islamophobia created by the media, public figures and even policies such as Prevent and others, under which Muslims are treated as policing and social policy problems, is extremely damaging. Islamophobia is not just a far-right extremism issue, and the extreme abuse and violent attacks on Muslims are not the only issues they face. The commonplace and trivialised views of Islamophobia send out the message to Muslims that they are outsiders in this country and that they are excluded as society divides into two groups—us and them.

This belief of exclusion resonates further when it is applied on top of existing barriers that all ethnic minorities face: poorer educational and employment prospects, poorer life chances and poorer healthcare compared with their white counterparts of similar backgrounds. Ultimately, Islamophobia leaves all Muslims feeling isolated and insecure in their own homes, despite the lengths to which they go to include themselves, their deep sense of belonging in this country and their keen desire to belong and join in.

As a proud British Muslim myself, I want to be clear that Islam is a religion of peace, love and charity, and for many it is not just our religion but our identity, and one that we are deeply proud of. Nowhere is this more evident than when Muslims open up their customs and practices to wider society. Much in this debate has been negative, but I want to celebrate the achievements and work of Muslims, celebrate the fact that Muslims open the doors of mosques, invite all communities to join in their religious celebrations, throw themselves into community life and initiatives that benefit all and spread awareness and understanding of what their culture is all about.

It is fitting during this holy month of Ramadan to point out that Muslims in Britain this year alone will donate tens of millions of pounds to charity, which I celebrate and the Charity Commission praises. Yet, sadly, because of the normalisation of Islamophobia, instead of feeling like they are productive and included members of society, Muslims are made to feel marginalised and isolated. They are excluded from what should be the shared life experiences between those of all backgrounds that make our society and culture so much richer.

I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, as time does not permit me to speak for long—although I am grateful for the 10 minutes I was promised. We must commit ourselves to ending the marginalisation of Muslims in society and to enforcing a zero-tolerance approach. If the Government are to prove they are serious about tackling the shameful rise in Islamophobia and the isolation of Muslims, they must do more to tackle the dangerous rise of the far right and end the practice of giving a high-profile platform to extremists. They must reaffirm and ensure an absolute responsibility and obligation on those in public office and in the media not to promote, fuel and normalise Islamophobia and Islamophobic tropes. They must take every available action, including legislation and adopting a firm definition of religiously and racially motivated hate, to ensure the perpetrators of Islamophobic hate crimes are brought to justice.

I say to the Minister that a definition cannot be forced downwards by political leaders or organisations, but must come up from the grassroots Muslim community. The House has a duty to speak up for Muslims and all those who face abuse, prejudice and discrimination. It is time we demanded more.

Local Government Finance

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I will not detain the House for long. The local government finance settlement is of particular interest to me due to the significant challenges that councils face in areas such as Suffolk in delivering services, particularly adult social care and children’s services. I am the chairman of the county all-party parliamentary group and in that role, along with many colleagues, I have made my concerns known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I am grateful to both of them for listening to those concerns and to the Secretary of State for providing an additional £150 million of funding for adult social care and an extra £16 million for the rural services delivery grant. From all that, £78.4 million will go to counties to help in the delivery of vital services. For Suffolk, there is an additional £2 million for the additional social care grant and £500,000 for the rural services delivery grant. The additional funds are welcome, as is the business rates retention pilot, which should provide Suffolk with an additional £10.5 million for economic growth-related projects.

However, additional money only goes some way towards meeting the rising costs of social care, both in Suffolk and other counties across England and Wales. Such areas face unique pressures as they are home to the largest and fastest-growing elderly populations. It is vital that the Government deliver a properly resourced, long-term, sustainable fair funding system to meet the estimated £2.54 billion county funding gap in 2021. I acknowledge the Secretary of State’s firm commitment to the fair funding review, which must result in a properly and fully researched, up-to-date, evidence-based solution that recognises both the demographic pressures of an ageing population and the actual cost of providing services in county areas. I sense a real strength of feeling among colleagues on both sides of the Chamber representing constituencies in county areas about the need for additional funding to plug the £2.54 billion gap, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), will confirm when he sums up that the fair funding review will take full account both of need and of the actual cost of providing vital services in counties such as Suffolk.

In some ways, I find it sad that we appear to be dividing counties and metropolitan areas with a “them and us” attitude. My constituency of Waveney is in a county area—north Suffolk—and believe me, Lowestoft is not a wealthy place and, looking at the current figures, I do not believe that we get the resources we need to tackle the deep-seated pockets of deprivation. We need to do something in a sensible and, dare I say it, collegiate way.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Let us bring the debate back to where it needs to be. I do not think that this is about “us and them” or counties versus metropolitan areas; this is about the sheer unfair nature of the cuts. The 10 most deprived councils see the highest cuts while the wealthiest councils do not. Will the hon. Gentleman at least accept that?

[Peter Aldous]

As I said, I do not represent a wealthy area, and many sacrifices have had to be made on all sides, but we need to consider things in a calm and rational way to try to come up with a solution that is fair to all. That may well involve putting additional funding into the Budget, which may be the only way to find a solution that gets approval from the majority, if not everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. I pay particular tribute to all Members who are either former or serving members of local authorities and have brought that expertise to bear today. I pay a special tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who has left impressively large shoes for me to fill.

Local government and the hard-working, dedicated people who work in it deliver vital services every day at the heart of the communities they serve. I am deeply honoured to represent them in government—to listen to them, learn from them, and work with them to build communities that people are proud to live in. I am therefore delighted that this settlement delivers on our promise to local government. It confirms the third year of an unprecedented four-year deal accepted by 97% of councils, providing long-term certainty to local government. It is a deal that delivers more than £200 billion over a five-year period, allowing councils to be bold and ambitious in planning for the future.

But there is no room for complacency. This Government are under no illusions about the pressure on local services, so today’s settlement seeks to ease that pressure while shielding taxpayers from unaffordable bills. We have gone above and beyond the four-year deal to listen and respond to what the sector wants.

[Imran Hussain]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Minister, but I have been advised that I must raise this point of order immediately. When I took part in the debate earlier, I should have put on the record and referred Members to my registered interest as a serving local councillor.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Excellent—sorted. Minister.