Human Rights in Kashmir

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Kashmir.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As a British parliamentarian, I remain proud of my roots in Pakistan and Kashmir. I continue to be privileged to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir, which has support from across the political spectrum. It has worked across Parliament and engaged with Government Ministers around one simple principle: the inalienable human rights of Kashmiris must always come first. That is why this debate is extremely timely, as Members across the House continue to be extremely concerned about the seriously escalating tensions in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Before I come on to that, let me put some points on the record very clearly.

For over a decade, I have called out the persecution, oppression and injustice faced by Kashmiris in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Their calls for justice have too often gone unanswered. Their fundamental human rights have been violated. Their right to self-determination has been repeatedly denied to them. For over a decade, I have called out and challenged the most repressive and draconian security legislation: the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Public Safety Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This legislation continues to be used to give the Indian armed forces sweeping powers of detention and immunity to persecute journalists, human rights defenders, political activists and ordinary civilians.

In August 2019, we all saw the right-wing Modi Government unilaterally and illegally revoke articles 370 and 35A, stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special constitutional status. That was followed by mass detentions and unprecedented communications blackouts, severe restrictions on civil liberties and the further erosion of democratic rights. I led the campaign in this place, on every single forum, to call out the illegal actions of the Modi regime. I want to today reassure the sons and daughters of Kashmir who remain under oppression in Indian-occupied Kashmir that their voices will never be silenced. They will continue to be heard loudly and clearly in this place.

I want to make another point for the record before I move on to the substantial part of the debate. There is no comparison between the long-term systematic human rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir and the current situation in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The scale, duration and nature of the repression in Indian-occupied Kashmir remains in a different category altogether. But that does not mean we should remain silent when serious concerns arise.

That brings me to the deeply troubling and worrying situation we have witnessed in recent weeks in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Members from across the House have been contacted by deeply distressed constituents unable to reach loved ones because of the lockdown and communications blackout imposed on parts of Azad Kashmir, now well into its fourth week.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have been inundated with representations from my constituents who have friends, family and loved ones in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. They are deeply concerned that the blackout has been going on for a month. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way forward is peaceful resolution and for the Government of Pakistan to return to the table for peace talks, and that our Government can play an important role in making those representations to the Pakistani Government?

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall come to his point shortly.

For over 1 million British Kashmiris, more than 50,000 of whom demonstrated on the streets of London over the weekend, this is not a distant foreign policy issue. These are their parents, brothers and sisters—their families—and they have been worried sick, staring at silent phones waiting for a call that does not come and hoping that people they love are safe.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Imran Hussain]

I will give way, but I ask hon. Members to be extremely brief in their interventions because I have a substantial contribution to make.

[David Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the APPG on Kashmir. In Stoke-on-Trent North, I too have been contacted by residents about people who live on both sides of the line of control, and they are seriously worried. We have had reports of shortages of food, medical supplies and baby milk. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government must do all they can to open all possible humanitarian routes?

[Imran Hussain]

I will take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who may make a similar point.

[Dr Gardner]

My hon. Friend is correct. I recently met constituents in my office who are deeply concerned about the internet blackout. They are unable to find out if their families are okay and have told me some horrendous stories, including—this is unverified—that a two-year-old child has been shot. Their major concerns are the food shortages and lack of medicines that can go in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the blockades must stop immediately so that children can survive?

[Imran Hussain]

I thank both my hon. Friends, and I absolutely agree with them. They will know that, as chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I co-ordinated a letter to the Foreign Secretary calling for urgent diplomatic engagement to address those very issues and tabled an early-day motion that now has the combined support of over 70 parliamentarians across the House, so I am grateful to all my colleagues. We have met Ministers and convened emergency parliamentary meetings through the APPG because this House cannot simply look away.

We have all seen deeply concerning reports of continued bloodshed, arbitrary arrests, restrictions on communication and a breakdown in dialogue with representatives of grassroots groups. More recently, we have seen reports suggesting restrictions on the movement of food and medical supplies into parts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Those reports are profoundly concerning.

We have also seen reports that those seeking to act as peaceful arbitrators, including senior Pakistani politicians, have been prevented from entering Azad Kashmir. That cannot help to de-escalate the situation. Groups such as the Joint Awami Action Committee have for many months sought to pursue peaceful negotiations around long-standing civic governance and economic concerns. There was a commitment that those issues would be resolved through dialogue.

Criminalising grassroots movements can never be a solution. Most of their reasonable demands were negotiated and met. There remain a number of outstanding issues, most importantly the 12 refugee seats. Of course, there will be strongly held views on all sides of that issue, but whatever view one takes, ordinary Kashmiris should not be made to pay the price for a failure to return to peaceful table talks.

It is deeply unfortunate that the situation has deteriorated to this point. I say to the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, and to the Joint Awami Action Committee, that the answer must be dialogue, restraint and peaceful negotiations. I welcome the efforts made in recent days by political figures and others who have called for an immediate return to negotiations. Those seeking to lower the temperature deserve the full support of this House.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the need to lower the temperature and de-escalate the situation. One of my constituents was visiting relatives in Kashmir recently and saw with his own eyes a relative shot by the Pakistani authorities who was too terrified to go to hospital because he feared reprisals. Does my hon. Friend agree that the shooting of unarmed civilians and peaceful protesters should not be tolerated by any country?

[Imran Hussain]

I absolutely agree. While not all the reports have emerged in full because of the communications blackout, they continue to concern the whole House, as they should.

My message to those who use inflammatory and divisive language is that they do not help anyone. Successive Pakistani high commissioners and Ministers have engaged constructively with the all-party parliamentary group in the past. I ask the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir what message they are sending on human rights to over a million British Kashmiris and the international community. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer)—he could not be with us today, but he is no doubt well represented—for regularly meeting me and the all-party parliamentary group. He has visited Pakistan and continues to monitor the situation and raise the matter directly.

Today, we in this House make an appeal to our Government to send a direct appeal to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Government of Azad Kashmir to ensure that this situation ends immediately. The lockdown and communications blackout must end. Any restrictions affecting the movement of food and medical supplies must end. Those acting as peaceful mediators must be allowed immediate access. Meaningful table talks with grassroots groups must resume immediately. At the heart of those negotiations must remain one principle above all others: respect for the human rights of Kashmiris. Our Government must play their role for the 1 million British Kashmiris impacted by this situation. They must continue to use every appropriate diplomatic channel to encourage restraint, de-escalation and dialogue.

Ultimately, peace and dialogue must prevail. There is only one sustainable path forward: peaceful table talks. As chair of the APPG on Kashmir, I will continue to work constructively with all those prepared to pursue that objective. I will continue to stand up and be the voice for over 1 million British Kashmiris with family who continue to be directly affected by these events. We will continue to speak out whenever the human rights of Kashmiris are threatened, and I will continue to push for a peaceful resolution in which the voices, dignity and fundamental rights of the Kashmiri people are placed where they always should have been: at the very heart of any lasting settlement.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

I thank all Members who have taken part in this very important debate. Our constituents will no doubt have listened to all the contributions.

May I briefly address the age-old policy that this is a bilateral issue? Let us be absolutely clear in this Chamber that this is an international issue that stems from international law and the birthright of Kashmiris under international law. We in this place have a moral, historical and legal duty, and it is about time we developed the moral courage to execute that moral duty.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister who responded to the debate today, but also to the Minister for the Middle East and Pakistan. He has kept me regularly updated, has visited Pakistan during this period and has assured me that he continues to monitor the situation, relay the concerns of this House and make sure that we push and press towards a peaceful resolution.

I will make this point to the Government again: over 70 parliamentarians now support the call of the all-party parliamentary group—I am grateful to them—and I hope the Government have heard that call clearly. We will not stop. We will continue that campaign, and more parliamentarians will join it.

To go to the root of it, I again urge our Government to continue to use every diplomatic lever to press the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir to immediately end the lockdown; to immediately restore all communications; to immediately allow full access to food and, in particular, medical supplies; to allow access to mediators and human rights organisations; and finally, to immediately resume peaceful table talks, at the heart of which must remain the inalienable human rights of Kashmiris.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for human rights in Kashmir.

Spending Review 2025

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Every £1 of Government investment in R&D crowds in £2 of private investment and returns £7 of benefit to the wider economy. That is why we have put £86 billion of investment into R&D over the course of this spending review.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that your constituents, my constituents, the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), and indeed the Chancellor’s constituents, will greatly welcome the £2.1 billion for a new tram and a new bus station in Bradford, as well as the billions for social and affordable housing, which is much needed. However, the Chancellor will know that over half of all children in my constituency are still growing up in poverty, which is true of many hon. Members’ constituencies. Child poverty is not a statistic; it is a national disgrace. It is a direct result of 14 years of ideological austerity under the Conservatives. Today’s statement is a step in the right direction, particularly with the announcement that half a million more children will be eligible for free school meals, but frankly it does not go far enough. Will the Chancellor tell me what further measures this Government will announce to alleviate and finish child poverty, including scrapping the two-child limit, which continues to put thousands of children into poverty?

[Rachel Reeves]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s welcome for the £2.1 billion for the West Yorkshire combined authority, which will help pay for mass transit to connect Leeds and Bradford, but also Kirklees and Calderdale. In today’s statement we were able to provide money for free school meals for 500,000 children, lifting 100,000 out of poverty, as well as continuing to roll out breakfast clubs and the warm homes programme, which will help insulate properties and bring down bills for millions of families. In addition, we have increased the national living wage by nearly 7%, and the Employment Rights Bill will ensure that more people have security and dignity at work—all part of our plan for change and lifting children and families out of poverty.

Spring Statement

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have another 45 minutes on the statement. If questions are short, more Members will get in.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

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

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We recognise that we are asking businesses to contribute more, and that this will have impacts, but it will be up to individual businesses to decide how to respond to these changes. The one thing that we know for certain is that if we had chosen a different path—if we had followed the previous Government and increased income tax or national insurance—that would have led to a tax on people’s payslips. It would have led to the amount of money in people’s pockets going down, which would have broken our manifesto promise.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I apologise for intervening so early in the debate, but a number of my small businesses, charities and voluntary sector organisations have raised concerns and asked for clarity. Can the Minister outline what safety nets and other measures for support are available to small businesses, charities and voluntary sector organisations?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will get to the detail of the Bill in a moment, but I can briefly reassure him that the Bill doubles the employment allowance, which will go from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that small businesses and charities are protected; they can employ up to four people on the national living wage without paying a penny in national insurance. In the context of the tough decisions that we had to take in this Bill, that is important protection for small businesses and charities.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

I will base much of my contribution on the latter part of this Bill, which deals with private schools. However, before I go into that, I welcome the changes that the Minister is proposing through this legislation that will massively benefit our high streets. The reality is that the past 14 years saw our high streets devastated by the previous Government. In particular, I welcome the permanent lowering of business rates in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which I think will be a huge boost to our high streets.

On the schools part of the debate, it would be remiss of me not to start by mentioning the 14 years of brutal Tory cuts that have led us to this moment, in which state schools are hanging on by a thread. They were abandoned for 14 years by a Government who brought zero investment to schooling—who simply watched the sector struggle through the covid-19 pandemic and left school buildings laden with asbestos or crumbling concrete. They knew that teachers were paying out of their own pockets for school supplies and food for hungry students, but instead of supporting them, the previous Government chose to attack public workers who were close to breaking point. Teachers have long paid the price, leaving the education system in droves, and can we blame them, given the treatment they have had over the past 14 years? In my constituency of Bradford East alone, 95% of schools have faced cuts to per pupil funding—cuts of £15.6 million since 2010. That is over £680 less per pupil.

As such, it is refreshing to finally see a Government share my values and my commitment to not leave state schools at breaking point, with a clear plan to deliver a much-needed lifeline directly to those schools by ending private schools’ eligibility for business rates charitable rate relief and VAT relief. The Minister was right to note that VAT relief is dealt with in a separate piece of legislation that is yet to come before this House, but both are connected in this debate, so I will also make mention of the VAT relief that private schools currently enjoy.

Frankly, the £1.5 billion that will be raised will go towards improving the education and life outcomes of all children by funding the recruitment of thousands more teachers and much-needed breakfast clubs for children. Many will welcome the Government ending the discount on education that the richest schools and the richest parents currently get, because what kind of Government arrange concessions for the wealthiest while working-class children go hungry as they learn? Despite some of the arguments we have heard and will hear, that is not a society that champions freedom of choice; it is one where the wealth bracket of someone’s parents, their postcode and their school determines the success of their life. If we let this inequality entrench itself any longer, we will never be able to end it.

I fully understand and endorse the spirit of the decision to close the tax loophole on private schools, but I also note the growing fear and concern in my constituency and other constituencies, particularly for the smaller independent and faith schools that, as we should also recognise, provide excellent and often specialised schooling for children. That is why I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that, where private schools are charities that provide education for children with education, health and care plans, they will retain the charitable relief, as they rightly should. My view is that the impact on smaller independent and faith schools should be considered too, and I firmly believe that it is not in the spirit of this legislation to punish them. We should draw a clear distinction.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the impact on small schools, which often have pretty low fees, so is he going to vote against the Bill tonight? The spirit of this legislation is to hit everything in the private sector, as if every institution was Eton, when he knows and we know that they are anything but.

[Imran Hussain]

The right hon. Gentleman is a brave soul because he often tries to defend the indefensible. He and I have often sparred between these Benches, but I would say to him that the place he comes from and the place I come from are distinctly different. I support the spirit and ethos of this legislation because I do not think it is right to give tax concessions and subsidies to the richest in society while the poorest of our kids go hungry in schools, so we come from different places. If he lets me make the point about where I am coming from about genuinely smaller and faith schools, I think it may at least answer part of his question.

When we talk about these schools, let us be clear that the average fees for some of the smaller schools are about £3,000, which is a great deal less than the average. They are maintained through community support and donations, and they are not in the same league as the Etons of this world. They do not reproduce class inequalities, and in fact they enable some of the most deprived communities to flourish. It would be a travesty if these schools were inadvertently punished by a decision designed to tackle the same inequality that some of them work so hard to break down.

If we do not consider the impact on them, the schools charging the lowest fees, which are often located in extremely deprived communities, will suffer and, sadly, the children whose working-class parents have often saved up for many years to get them into these schools will have to leave. Again, while I of course support children moving from that sector into the state sector, the reality is that 14 years of underfunding and under-investment have left us with serious capacity issues in the state sector, which is something Conservative Members may want to address when they speak.

I want to take this opportunity to recognise the massive contributions that faith schools make to society. I have a number of Muslim faith schools that do some excellent work in my constituency, and I want to put on the record my thanks to them for all they do. I must therefore urge Ministers to put in safeguards for smaller independent and faith schools, many of which, sadly, will not survive the policy in its current form. This can be achieved, because I believe the money that would be generated from the smallest of these schools is not at a level that would have an impact on the overall spirit of this legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are staring at me in a very telling way—although there is no time limit, I know that look. To conclude, I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot keep funding tax breaks for the top end of society while neglecting the rest. This is something I have spoken on and championed my whole life, and I believe this policy is the right one for our state schools. However, I must urge the Government to reconsider, and not let smaller independent and faith schools, which are some of the lowest-charging schools, to pay the price. I must urge Ministers to listen to their concerns, and put in safeguards as this and other relevant Bills progress through to their next stages.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

The energy security investment mechanism was designed, as my hon. Friend points out, to give more certainty not only to the oil and gas sector, but to investors, ensuring that the energy profits levy is disapplied when prices return to historically normal levels. To provide additional certainty, on the back of urging from him and the industry, we have agreed to legislate for ESIM and will be announcing that shortly.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Regardless of what the Chancellor tells us, the reality remains that people in Bradford are worse off after 14 years of this Government. Healthcare, GPs and dentists are less accessible, homes are more expensive, colder and riddled with mould, jobs are less secure and badly paid, with stagnating wages, and household savings have been wiped out by rising food, water, energy and fuel bills. Ahead of the last Budget he will deliver before the general election, will the Chancellor apologise for 14 years of disaster that have devastated our communities?

[Jeremy Hunt]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman some positive messages he can take home to his constituents in Bradford: violent crime and burglaries have been halved, school standards are up, the NHS has more doctors and nurses than ever in history and real after-tax income for people on the minimum wage or national living wage is up by 30% if they are working full time.

Autumn Statement

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

My understanding is that this will apply to Wales in exactly the same way as it applies to the rest of the UK. As for how we do this, we need to work out the most sensible, proportionate and balanced way of solving the problem of having to double our electricity generation between now and 2050. We are going to have to do things differently as a result.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

We are in the worst cost of living crisis that we have ever seen. The key takeaway from the just four measures the Chancellor announced to tackle the crisis is not investing in deprived communities, ensuring the richest pay their fair share or spreading economic growth across the whole country, but a commitment to stop a pint getting more expensive. Just what is that supposed to do for my constituents, who face crippling mortgage payments, who are paying 30% more for food, whose wages are stagnating and whose homes have been unaffordable to heat?

[Jeremy Hunt]

I think the hon. Gentleman has looked at the statement selectively, because our support for people struggling with cost of living pressures has risen, as a result of my decisions, to £104 billion. Let me just go through this: pensioners are going to get an increase next year that is three times the rate of inflation; people on benefits are going to get an increase in their benefits that is double inflation; people who are renting and on low incomes are going to see an £800 increase, on average, through the local housing allowance; and anyone on the lowest legally payable wage, where they are working full-time, could see an extra £1,800 from increases in the national living wage.

Mortgage and Rental Costs

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully and I recognise those stories of people seeing their mortgages double because of what is happening. I will come on to the solutions proposed by the Labour party, but it is important that money is not injected into the economy at this time. If that happened, interest rates would go up even more, crippling the hopes and opportunities of exactly those we want to help. I will come on to the solutions that we propose shortly.

Over the next few years, 7.5 million families will be hit by the Tory mortgage bombshell, month after month after month. That is why it is essential that greater mortgage flexibility and support from lenders must be mandatory, not voluntary as the Government have put forward.

Consumer champion Martin Lewis warned the Government about mortgage market issues last year, and he now says “the timebomb has exploded”, yet under the Government’s scheme, 1 million households are missing out. What is the Government’s response to them? Tough? It is up to the discretion and the goodwill of their lender? That is not good enough.

Although it is welcome, as I said, that many lenders are stepping up and doing the right thing, the scheme cannot be voluntary. That is why, when Labour set out our mortgage package last week, we made sure that that would be compulsory, across the board, and required of lenders. That is right: required of lenders. Without that clarity and confidence, families are rightly anxious about what comes next and how it will affect them.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, highlighting the real situation facing many of our constituents as we sit here today. In my constituency, 9,000 families will see a mortgage increase of up to £1,400, on top of struggling to put bread and butter on the table and keep up with energy costs. All we hear from the Prime Minister is that they should hold their nerve. Frankly, that is rich coming from somebody who is never going to be in that position. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that rather than finding solutions, what this Tory Government and the Prime Minister are demonstrating is that they are completely out of touch with people’s real problems today?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of the people of Bradford East, a constituency that I know well and that I know will be badly affected, not just by the Tory mortgage bombshell but by the cost of living increases as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am here to account for what has happened in the UK. Obviously, there are differences—[Interruption.] If I may answer. There are differences across the EU and the US. What I am telling the House, which is quite transparently clear, is that inflationary pressures are affecting all economies at the moment, and it is my responsibility to account for what we are doing as a Government.

[Imran Hussain]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Glen]

I wish to make more progress.

Where there are non-inflationary measures that we can take to relieve the anxiety faced by families, we will do so and we will do everything we can to address the situation. That is why, on Friday, the Chancellor met the UK’s principal mortgage lenders, alongside senior representatives from the Financial Conduct Authority and UK Finance, to agree new support for those struggling with their mortgage payments.

[John Glen]

I will come on to set out in detail what arrangements we have made. As the Chancellor set out pretty clearly yesterday, we will hear in the next couple of weeks the details of that agreement, which includes a growing number of lenders—it currently covers 85% of lenders in the country.

[Imran Hussain]

rose—

[John Glen]

I wish to make some more progress and then I will take some interventions in a moment.

At that meeting on Friday, the Chancellor secured agreement from lenders to a new mortgage charter, which we published yesterday. It sets out what support customers will receive. We are proud to say that, over the weekend, more lenders signed up to the charter, and we encourage further lenders to join that 85% of mortgage market providers.

The charter provides support for two groups of people in particular. The first group is those who are worried about their mortgage repayments. If they want to switch to an interest-only mortgage or extend their mortgage term to reduce their monthly payments, they will be able to do so with the option of switching back to their original mortgage deal within six months without a new affordability check or affecting their credit score.

For most people, the right course of action will be to continue to make payments on their current mortgage. Keeping up full repayments means that they will pay less interest overall. But this new measure means that people will be able to opt for a lower-cost approach for six months with full reversibility, giving them the peace of mind of knowing that they can try out a new approach and still change their mind later on.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point. As the Chancellor said yesterday, he did raise that with lenders on Friday. We will continue to work closely with them on those disparities where they exist. My colleague the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is responsible for the relationship with financial services institutions, will also be attending to this issue. It is right that, with interest rates rising, banks should be looking to put as much of that rise as possible on to the savings rates that they offer to consumers.

[Imran Hussain]

Time and time again the Minister seems to be ducking the central issue in this debate, which is that the charter the Government have proposed will not cover millions of people and will not provide support. Why will he not instead subscribe to the Labour position today and require all lenders to do it, so that everybody can get support? Answer the question Minister.

Non-domicile Tax Status

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful contribution. I hope he will understand that I must neither confirm nor deny that given where we are in the Budget cycle, but he makes an interesting point about the level of the remittance and his views on its impact.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman at the back has been very patient, so I will give way.

[Imran Hussain]

I am very grateful to the Minister. Thus far in this whole debate I have not heard one credible reason why we should not abolish non-dom tax status. The Minister seemed to indicate earlier that she is waiting for the right fiscal event, and then she will abolish it Is that right?

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, I have to be very careful, as any Treasury Minister at the Dispatch Box six weeks before a fiscal event—a Budget—would have to be. The hon. Member will understand that there may or may not be market sensitivities in relation to tax policies ahead of the Budget, so I am not able to give any indication at this moment. What I am trying to do is to set out the facts in relation to tax take, and of course there will be a debate across the House about the whys and wherefores of that.

It is important, for us to have a reasoned debate, that we understand that non-domiciled taxpayers pay UK income tax, capital gains tax and national insurance contributions on their UK income and gains. That is money, as all taxpayers’ money is, that we can use to improve our schools, benefit patients in our hospitals and pour into infrastructure projects that will help level up across the country.

On top of that—again, the shadow Minister seems ready to dismiss this—non-doms have invested more than £6 billion in the UK into UK businesses, helping to grow the UK’s economy. That is an extraordinary amount of money: it is just under half the policing budget for England and Wales. I know that, when writing a speech, these sums may not seem very significant, but the real-life impact these figures have is very significant.

As the shadow Minister also, sadly, does not seem to have understood, we have in fact gone further in making sure non-doms pay their fair share of tax. In 2017, the Government reformed the rules to end permanent non-dom status and ensure all non-doms have to pay inheritance tax on any residential property owned in the UK, even when they own that property through a complicated structure such as an offshore trust or an offshore company. When the challenge was put to the shadow Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) about why a Labour Minister had not managed to do that before, we did not have an answer. Those affected by these reforms are paying more than £3 billion per year in UK income tax, capital gains tax and national insurance contributions on top of the earlier figures.

I would like to correct another mistake made, I am sure inadvertently, by the shadow Minister. We did in fact deal with non-domiciled taxpayers in the autumn statement, because the Chancellor closed a loophole to ensure that non-doms who have grown companies in the UK pay capital gains tax to the UK, bringing in an additional £830 million in revenue to support frontline public services. This announcement makes the tax system fairer and ensures that tax cannot be avoided by an individual exchanging shares in a UK close company for shares in an equivalent non-UK company as a way to re-categorise UK income or gains as foreign income or gains. That means that UK resident non-doms pay tax on gains and distributions received where value has been built up in the UK. The remittance basis is intended to provide an alternative tax treatment for foreign income and gains. It does not extend to income and gains that result from UK assets, and the Government are not willing to accept contrived arrangements that allowed clever tax planning to sidestep the tax charge that would otherwise have been due. As I mentioned a few moments ago, any analysis will be considered as part of the usual Budget process. We keep all taxes under review, as usual, and we do not comment on speculation around changes to tax policy outside fiscal events. That long-standing tradition has historically been respected by parties of all colours.

The Government will be voting against the Opposition motion, because it breaches established precedents and would prejudice the development of tax policies. I note that we have a Budget in just six weeks. I also note that we need to maintain an internationally competitive tax system that brings in talent and investment, which contributes to the growth of the economy. It is vital that we deal not just with the current economic problems we face, but also with the long-standing difficult ones that have beset us for decades. As the Chancellor outlined in his growth speech last week, we need to support enterprise so that more businesses want to locate here. Among other things, that means taking steps to reduce the tax burden overall. We are a party that believes in low taxation, and as soon as the fiscal situation allows, we want to reduce it. The Conservative vision for our economy is to unlock our national potential, and to be Europe’s most exciting, innovative and prosperous economy. We are making taxes fairer, simpler, and supportive of growth, to achieve the bright future for our country that I am sure we all want.

Energy (oil and gas) profits levy

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

The things we do not like about this Budget are the fact that the Government will still not impose a proper windfall tax, which I am coming to, will still not abolish non-dom status and will still not listen to us about private schools. If the right hon. Gentleman pays close attention and listens to my speech, he will learn about the things we do not like in his autumn statement.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, once we get past the smoke and mirrors of this autumn statement, it is nothing more than ideological austerity on steroids?

[Tulip Siddiq]

As always, my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion for his constituents, speaks the truth, because when we examine the autumn statement carefully, we see what will actually happen to hard-working people in this country and how they are bearing the brunt of an economic crisis that Conservative Members created in Downing Street.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Let me be absolutely clear: the only thing this autumn statement achieves is further inequality, further injustice and further unfairness to our communities, and that is after 12 years of the devastation of our communities through a well-thought-out, well-planned ideological agenda.

In my constituency of Bradford East—let us deal with facts; Conservative Members want to talk about facts, so let us talk about them—50% of children are living in absolute poverty. Fifty per cent. of those may not even have a hot meal today. Many of those families will be using food banks—as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said, where they can be made available—in a tragic society in which food banks are now more dominant than fast food places. That is the stark reality.

What does this autumn statement do to alleviate the poverty in my constituency? What shall I tell the children in my constituency about what this autumn statement does for them? What does it do to make sure every child will get a hot meal today? What does it do to make sure that families—including working families—will not use food banks? Those are the questions that my constituents and those of hon. Members in this House will be asking us when we go back. It is fine playing ping-pong or flashy economics across the Chamber, but that is not the question we will be asked.

This statement is a missed opportunity, just like the last statement was, the statement before that and, tragically, the statements we have had over the last 12 years. I am astonished when I come to debates such as this and see Conservative Members—they have even done it today—using that defence, as though the last Labour Government 12 years ago are suddenly to blame for all the economic problems we face today. I remind hon. Members: they may be able to use that argument for the first, second or third year, but we are four general elections forward. We are on our fifth Prime Minister. We have changed God knows how many Chancellors. They cannot use that argument today. We have to move on, accept responsibility and place it where it lies.

The fact remains that the UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. Our country is the fifth richest on the planet, yet when we leave this House and its ivory towers, and go to my constituency and those of other hon. Members, we see a country that looks nothing like one of the richest. We see ambulances backed up queuing, children crammed into bursting classes, hospital wards overflowing into corridors, GP appointments that can never be booked, trains that do not run on time, buses that do not turn up, police officers that cannot attend crimes, social security that provides very little security, rivers that are literally sewers, and homes that are riddled with damp and mould. Those are not signs of the fifth richest country; they are signs of a country that is broken and has been broken for a long time—for 12 years.

We know where the blame for our broken country lies. It lies with the party in government that has squandered and misspent over a decade in power. It lies with the party that imposed cruel austerity on our public services. But I do not expect this Government to understand. After all, they are led by a Prime Minister who is not only the richest Member of Parliament, but one of the country’s richest citizens. He is twice as rich as the King. He has never known hardship. He is supported by a Chancellor who has never been hard up or had to scrimp and save like my constituents, or choose between heating and eating like my constituents. He has never asked how he is going to get from one day to the next, as my constituents have.

If I come across as angry, perhaps it is because I am angry. I am enraged that over the past 12 years this Tory Government have robbed my constituents in Bradford of their futures, to line their own pockets and the pockets of their friends and donors. I am enraged by the fact that, despite the country falling down around their ears, with crumbling schools and hospitals, they still will not admit the carnage they have caused. Indeed, they sit there and they cheer.

[Jonathan Gullis]

As someone who probably speaks with the same sort of vim and vigour as he does, I always admire the passion of the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber. He laid out a litany of issues across our country. Of course I am not in denial of those situations. Can he promise the House, and members of the public, that if Labour were in government, taxation on individuals—not the wealthiest, but average income householders—would not increase at all in any of Labour’s fiscal policies to help to deliver on their fiscal plans? General taxation would not in any way increase—can he deliver that promise to the House right now?

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Gentleman, who I normally have good banter with, tragically on this occasion illustrates the very point I make. His constituents expect him to scrutinise his own Government, who are not alleviating poverty even in his constituency. When he goes back to his constituency, I suggest he asks those questions of constituents and they will provide the answer to the question for him, which is this: it is his Government who for the past 12 years have made their lives a misery.

[Neale Hanvey]

The hon. Gentleman is making an outstanding contribution. Does he agree that gross greed and the deliberate exploitation of people lies at the heart of the fundamental problem we have in our society? We must talk about that, challenge it and eradicate it.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Going back to my opening lines, the reality remains that what this statement does—perhaps the surest thing it achieves—is further inequality, injustice and unfairness.

[Jonathan Gullis]

rose—

[Imran Hussain]

I will not give the hon. Gentleman time again. He asked a question and I gave him a perfectly good suggestion: to go and ask his constituents. He will find the answer there.

What is shocking is that Conservative Members sat there and cheered and applauded when the ex-Chancellor delivered the fiscal event that crashed our economy. They cheered, and people in Bradford and elsewhere across the country now face unaffordable mortgages. They cheered at soaring energy bills. They cheered at spiralling food costs and they cheered at mounting fuel prices. That disconnect with the rest of the country, that incapability to understand the challenges that people in Bradford and elsewhere face, is why this autumn statement delivered next to nothing for my constituents and why no Tory Budget ever will.

After 12 years of failure, carnage and chaos, it is even more apparent than ever that the Tory Government have run out of ideas and run out of road. They have no mandate from the country and no support from the public. Instead of presenting this watered-down Budget that fails to properly address any of the challenges and hardships that people in Bradford face, the Government should have done the right thing—the principled thing—and called for a general election. But the reason Conservative Members—including the Prime Minister—will not call for a general election is that they know their fate. They know that, in a general election, the British people will repay them for the hardship, chaos and absolute devastation that they have brought to our communities. Let me assure them again: when a general election is called, the British people will pay them back with interest at the ballot box.