Health and Disability Reform

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The consultation will be very thorough. It is available in accessible formats to ensure we cater to the greatest extent that we can, and that we get the best possible and most universal feedback. I am pleased that my hon. Friend spoke to the issue of the employment of disabled people. In 2017, we set a 10-year target of a million more disabled people in employment; we broke that target in five years rather than 10.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Announcing that disabled people suffering from certain conditions will no longer receive support payments, but instead get improved access to treatment, is one of the most absurd policies to have come out of this Government in the past 14 years. The Government plan relies on imagined brilliant mental healthcare support being available. Is the Minister even aware how long people have to wait for treatment after being referred? After 14 years of this Tory Government gutting our NHS and our mental healthcare, even basic access to treatment does not exist, let along the improved access the Minister is relying on in the fantasy world he lives in.

[Mel Stride]

I simply do not recognise the comments the hon. Gentleman has made about our national health service. There are more people working in the national health service than at any time in its history: 21,000 more nurses and 7,000 more doctors in the past year alone. We are spending a record sum on the national health service. I will not give chapter and verse, as I did earlier, as to the other things we are doing, but we are completely committed to the health and mental health of people up and down the country. There will be new ways of doing things. If we do not have a grown-up conversation, as I describe it, about those matters, we will not discover those new ways. WorkWell is a completely new way of addressing issues, such as mental health, and encouraging people to stay or go back into work. It did not exist 18 months ago; it came about because we consulted people and came up with a solution.

Women’s State Pension Age

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I listened to the hon. Gentleman extremely carefully, and I think we owe it to all those to whom he referred and those who may be in a similar situation to take this matter extremely seriously. We will look at it very carefully, and we will come to appropriate conclusions while ensuring that we interact with Parliament in an appropriate way, very much as we did in our interactions with the ombudsman.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am not sure why the Secretary of State has come to this House to tell us and WASPI women nothing apart from that he is considering the report. He keeps talking about its complexities, but one simple finding at its heart is that this Government and this Parliament must remedy the grave injustices against the thousands of WASPI women in my constituency, and up and down this country. Hon. Members from across this House have asked the Secretary of State quite reasonably for a timescale, but he refuses to commit and uses the words “undue delay.” Will he at least accept that every time a Minister stands up and says “undue delay” or “due process” they really mean that they have no intention of addressing the problem, and are saving face and kicking the can down the road?

Household Support Fund

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Household Support Fund.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate this matter. Since October 2021, the household support fund has provided £2.5 billion in local crisis support. I am delighted that both of the Ministers responsible for setting it up, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), are in their places, as is the current Minister, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). The fund has played a crucial role. At the autumn statement, I asked the Chancellor whether it would be extended into next year. His answer was yes, but it turns out that that was incorrect; the documentation did not bear that answer out, and we still do not know the answer to my question, hence the debate.

In the 1930s, the then Unemployment Assistance Board offered one-off additional payments on top of weekly assistance. From 1988, discretionary payments were centralised in the Department for Work and Pensions social fund. The coalition Government replaced that with local welfare assistance, making the fair argument that local authorities were best placed to distribute the funding. The social fund budget went to local authorities, but it was never ringfenced to the new local welfare assistance. As local council budgets have been squeezed, leading to recent bankruptcy announcements, councils have cut back. Local welfare assistance spending fell 87% from 2010-11 to 2019-20, and 35 councils operated no local welfare assistance at all in 2021-22. That decline was only ended by the household support fund.

The remarkable Liverpool-based charity End Furniture Poverty sent freedom of information requests to every local council about the year 2022-23. Eight said they depend entirely on the household support fund to fund local welfare. In a further 23 councils, the fund provides more than half of their spending. Of the £91 million spent by local authorities on local welfare assistance in 2022-23, only £34.7 million came from councils’ core budgets; 62% came from the household support fund. Failing to extend the fund now, with no replacement, would end vital support in the midst of a continuing crisis, but it would also end a feature of social security that has been supported by every Government since 1934.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. He is right to put the situation in context, because it has to be viewed against the backdrop of 14 years of ideological austerity cuts, combined with the worst cost of living crisis. Not only has destitution increased by 61% in the past three years, but local authorities are poorer and cannot provide this support. Does he agree that, should the fund be cut, it would take away the essential lifeline that many families who struggle to put food on the table rely on?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I agree with my hon. Friend, as I do with the press release issued last Friday by the Minister. It said:

“The Household Support Fund is there for anyone who needs a helping hand.”

The question is whether it will still be there in six weeks’ time, which is the subject of this debate.

Asbestos in Workplaces

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Mr Paisley, it is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, sir. I, too, start by thanking the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) for bringing this important debate here today. I think we can all agree that, in her opening remarks, she made an absolutely firm case on the real dangers of asbestos.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my right hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), who all made excellent contributions and highlighted the real dangers, but also some tragic real-life stories of the real impact that asbestos is having.

As we all know and as has been said here today, asbestos is a deeply dangerous material. It was therefore right, and long overdue, that the last Labour Government banned the import, supply and use of asbestos in 1999. Yet asbestos remains all too prevalent in many buildings across the UK, as we have heard. The serious dangers that asbestos poses, despite being banned for almost a quarter of a century, are shown nowhere more clearly than in the number of people who have died as a result of asbestos-related conditions. Each year, there are about 5,000 asbestos-related deaths in the UK, with 2,300 in 2021 alone attributed to mesothelioma, and almost 500 mentions of asbestosis on death certificates.

The risk that asbestos poses for working people in particular—they are forced to spend significant periods in workplaces riddled with it—is significant and deeply alarming, because there are just so many workplaces, especially in the public sector, where asbestos remains present. The TUC found that 90% of schools still contain asbestos. We have heard similar statistics for hospitals—the NHS—and other public sector buildings.

It seems that the primary protection at the moment is through the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, but with so many people contracting asbestosis after being exposed in their workplace, there is real concern that the existing legislation is just not enough, so the Government need to look long and hard at whether further protections, which are actually enforceable, are needed.

I am rushing slightly because time is limited. The Government first need to make clear whether the current legislation and protections for working people from the risks of asbestos exposure will actually exist beyond the end of the year, because right now that is far from clear. Under the Government’s Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which will automatically delete a huge number of pieces of employment rights legislation, the Control of Asbestos Regulations will cease to have any force unless amended or replaced by secondary legislation. The Government were warned of that when they were rushing the retained EU law Bill through Parliament. They were warned that sunsetting so many rights and protections was reckless at best and dangerous at worst. They were even pushed on the Control of Asbestos Regulations specifically during the passage of the Bill. The Minister responsible answered that the Government saw opportunities to reduce business burdens and reaffirmed that the United Kingdom has high standards of health and safety. I would be grateful to hear this Minister’s views on where they are going with that. We have a number of asks for the Government. Evidence on the number of asbestos deaths and the number of buildings that still contain asbestos shows us that we need to more, not less. The Government should start by following through on recommendations made to them. First, they must ensure adequate data collection and reporting of buildings that contain asbestos. Many locations are not known about until renovation starts. Secondly, the Government should conduct a serious review of the adequacy of asbestos exposure limits. The UK’s limit is 10 times lower than limits across Europe and 100 times lower than the limit recommended by the International Commission on Occupational Health.

Thirdly, the Government should reverse the cuts made to the Health and Safety Executive’s funding. Because of cuts of up to 50% between the levels seen under the last Labour Government and 2019-20, there has been a huge reduction in the number of inspectors, from 3,700 to 1,000. At the same time, the Government should reverse their attacks on trade unions and their ability to organise, because trade union health and safety reps play a critical role in keeping workers safe.

Time not permitting, Mr Paisley, I will conclude by saying that I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s response to each of those four questions, particularly the one about retained EU law and how the Government plan to continue regulation and legislation in this area.

Health and Safety and Nuclear (Fees) Regulations 2022

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 General Committees

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will try to keep my remarks brief, as I am sure hon. Members across the Committee want to get to an important debate in the main Chamber, in particular to stand up for the rights and protections of our hard-working frontline staff.

We of course support the regulations. As set out by the Minister, they amend the errors in the 2021 regulations that were identified by the Department for Work and Pensions. They will ensure that the Health and Safety Executive and the Office for Nuclear Regulation can go about their work of maintaining strong health and safety standards.

Nevertheless, while we will not oppose the regulations, we have concerns about why the Minister has had to make them again. We want to know not only how and why the errors that necessitated the Government revoking and replacing the 2021 regulations were made in the first place, but how and why they were not picked up in the drafting process. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation today—it was an unfortunate oversight—but these are important regulations, and the House and the country rely on Ministers scrutinising legislation properly before it is laid, in particular with checks in the drafting process. We therefore have real concerns that both primary and secondary legislation brought before the House has not been looked at properly by Ministers who seek to put it on the statute book, including in other areas. The regulations prompt that question.

Given that the Government are forcing through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill—itself a product of the UK’s departure from the EU, as the regulations are—we are naturally worried that they have not done proper due diligence on that legislation either. All retained EU law will be scrubbed from the statute book by the end of 2023, unless the Government move to reinstate or replace it. That includes not only important employment rights and protections, but health and safety protections, too. If the Government are missing important wording in the regulations, what else are they missing in that incredibly complex Bill?

We also know that the regulations, which allow the Health and Safety Executive to continue to charge fees for the costs incurred during its work, will not negate the damage that the Government have inflicted on it. During their time in office, the Government have slashed funding to the HSE by almost half and have presided over the loss of a third of inspectors. It all goes back to the very pertinent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. The reality remains that over the past decade, the number of health and safety inspectors has gone down from just under 1,500 to below 1,000. Clearly, therefore, the HSE’s ability to do its job to keep people safe has been dramatically reduced.

I will be grateful if the Minister could inform us whether the Government will review all legislation passed in the same period as the 2021 regulations to ensure that similar errors do not exist. What are the Government doing to ensure confidence in the accuracy of their legislation, even if we do not necessarily agree with its intentions? What are they doing to ensure that no health and safety protections are lost during the passage of the retained EU law Bill?

Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) Trade and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2022

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 General Committees

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Dr Huq. It is, of course, a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair. That is a common name slip; you are not the first to make it. That name is fairly topical on the international stage.

As was pointed out in the other place earlier this year, and indeed by the Minister today, these are very technical—and admittedly very dry—regulations. In fact, some might argue that they are too dry for this time in the morning. However, I will add that I am impressed with the Government’s organisation today, and the huge show of strength, clearly outlining the importance of the regulations.

The draft regulations might not be overly exciting and will likely not attract much public attention to the Committee, but they are nevertheless of great importance—the points were rightly made by the Minister. The regulations relate to trade in some of the most dangerous substances, so it is important for the Government to get them right following the UK’s departure from the EU and our move away from EU retained law.

I pay tribute to the work of my counterpart in the other place, Baroness Sherlock, and the questions she asked, and I thank the Minister in the other place for her responses. The Minister in Committee today also went through some of the finer technical points, which I will spare the Committee by not repeating—I have them all listed here, but it will serve no purpose to repeat all the technical points the Minister made.

I want to concentrate my remarks on the implications of the draft regulations for the Health and Safety Executive. I have some concerns about the additional burdens that they may place on it. As the Minister knows, since 2010 the Government have overseen a substantial reduction in funding for the HSE. Despite the cuts, it is important that the HSE still has the capacity to ensure the smooth functioning of the information-sharing gateway.

Will the Minister confirm whether the HSE is in place to take up the new, important, additional responsibilities created by the new trade agreements that the UK has just signed? Will she also confirm that no budgetary pressures will force the HSE to take resources away from health and safety inspectors, who have already seen a substantial cut in their numbers over recent years, putting the enforcement of health and safety rules in the workplace out of reach for many and leaving many employers unaccountable?

It is also important that the draft regulations protect the public robustly, here in the UK and in those countries with which the UK has signed trade deals. That was another point that the Minister acknowledged in her speech. The regulations must not place unnecessary burdens, in particular financial ones, on chemical manufacturers or on those using their chemicals. The chemicals industry is one of the UK’s largest and most important industries in the manufacturing sector, employing tens of thousands of people in well-paid, high-skilled jobs, contributing billions of pounds to our economy and investing substantial sums in research and development. Any unnecessary burdens at a time when businesses are unable to afford any more problems would of course be extremely concerning. I think that the whole Committee would accept that point.

The Opposition will not oppose the draft regulations, but I hope that the Minister will address my concerns, which I am sure she will agree are expressed legitimately.

Working Tax Credit and Universal Credit: Two-Child Limit

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the two child limit of working tax credits and universal credit.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. You are quite right to point out that, while other debates might be happening, this debate is actually quite important. It has been six years, nine months and 13 days since the Budget in 2015, when the two-child limit appeared in the Red Book, and just over five years since it came into force. Some might be wondering why I am bothering to come here today to complain about this policy; it is because, for me, it is a fundamental injustice and deserves to be looked at seriously.

The Child Poverty Action Group and the Church of England estimate that 1.4 million children in 400,000 families are now affected by the two-child-limit policy. Unless it is abolished, the number of children affected will reach 3 million, as more children are born under the rules.

The two-child limit for child tax credits and universal credits broke the long-standing link between need and entitlement, on the basis that families in receipt of state support ought to face the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work. This is a false narrative; it is the myth of the benefit queen. This policy has never been about fairness.

The majority of families affected by the policy are in work—low-paid jobs, working to support their families. In mentioning that fact, I do not seek to stigmatise those not able to work—many have caring responsibilities, disabilities or other reasons that prevent them from working. They ought to have the protection of the social security system, too.

In many cases, it is all but impossible for those who are working to take on more hours to make up the drop in income created by the two-child limit. The Work and Pensions Committee pointed out that the cost of childcare can also mean that families will not be able to make up the loss by working more hours. The two-child limit is a poverty trap.

Many people are just not aware of the policy, which is a significant issue. They do not know that it will apply to them. The Government intended to influence people’s choices to have children, but they have certainly not been influenced in any meaningful way by a piece of Department for Work and Pensions legislation.



The latest research by Mary Reader, Jonathan Portes and Ruth Patrick on whether cutting child benefits reduces fertility in larger families establishes that the two-child limit is not leading to any major reductions in fertility among those likely to claim benefits. All the policy does is punish people for their circumstances and drive up child poverty rates.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing a very important debate to this Chamber. The reality is that this Government’s ideological, intentional austerity agenda, more than a decade long, has led to the biggest cost of living crisis in our generation and rampant poverty on our streets. Does the hon. Member agree that it is policies such as this that lead to children going hungry in our constituencies, and that is why it needs to be scrapped immediately?

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree. That poverty is deep and enduring, and prevents those children from reaching their full potential. We cannot forget the choices that many families are having to make because they just do not have enough money coming in.

No one can predict the course of their lives, certainly not the course of their children’s lives, and nobody can plan for absolutely every eventuality—it is just not the reality of life. CPAG estimates that, during the pandemic, an additional 15,000 families, who never envisaged losing their jobs and incomes in a global health crisis, were affected by the two-child limit, as they claimed universal credit for the first time. That includes people who worked in sectors that shut down and have yet to recover, people who tragically lost their partners to covid and people who still suffer the effects of long covid. Domestic abuse rates increased during the pandemic, which resulted in some families separating for good. In each of those scenarios, families with more than two children were not afforded the dignity of the support they required, because the Conservatives made a judgment back in 2015 about the appropriate size of a family for benefit claimants.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]]

For many families across my constituency who have lost their jobs and have seen their incomes fall and their costs rise, the increase to universal credit has been a lifeline throughout this crisis. It has kept them from being dragged into poverty and prevented them from joining the thousands across Bradford who, because of low pay, insecure work, high costs and under-employment, sadly struggle to get from one day to the next. Despite the benefit from this small increase, which meant families did not have to worry as much about putting food on the table, heating their home or keeping a roof over their head, the Government are still intent on cutting universal credit from April.

I represent a constituency where half of children are growing up in deprivation, so I know just how destructive poverty can be for families, and to children’s chances. It hurts their education and development, and actively harms both their mental and their physical health. I cannot be clearer about just how damaging it would be for the 13,000 households on universal credit in my constituency if the Government were to pull this small but steady foothold, which has granted much-needed financial breathing space. It would cripple household finances that have already been stretched to breaking point, and plunge hundreds of families in Bradford into a state of poverty, in which they simply would not know how to make their incomes last the week.

During what is the worst recession in 300 years, which has seen many more families who never expected to find themselves relying on universal credit dependent on the Government to get by, families need security in their incomes. I have seen an extension of the uplift described as a “splurge”, a “stunt” and a “waste”, but let me be clear: ensuring that people can afford to eat, keep a roof over their head and heat their home is never a splurge, never a stunt and never, ever a waste. It is a basic duty of any good Government to look after the poorest and most vulnerable in society. The decision to cut universal credit shows just how far removed from that duty this Government have become, and how they still have not grasped that it is the lowest paid and the poorest who are being hit hardest by the coronavirus pandemic.

We cannot escape the fact that there are many flaws with universal credit, but the choice for the Government today is clear: either they vote for the Labour motion and provide low-income families with certainty and security, or they choose to write off another generation and consign yet more families and children to a life of poverty and deprivation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

What recent steps he has taken to repatriate (a) British citizens and (b) UK residents overseas during the covid-19 pandemic.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

How many British citizens are awaiting repatriation as a result of the covid-19 pandemic.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)]

We estimate that over 1.3 million people have now returned to the UK from abroad on commercial routes. I can also tell the House that on the charter flights—the special arrangements—that we set up, over 30,000 British nationals have now returned on 141 flights chartered from 27 countries and territories.

[Imran Hussain [V]]

Many of my constituents who had their flights cancelled are facing considerable financial hardship as they are yet to see any refund for these flights or for hastily arranged alternative flights that were also cancelled. So will the Secretary of State guarantee that those whose flights have been cancelled will be refunded and that the Government will step in to make sure that this is the case?

[Dominic Raab]

We certainly share the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman about flights that are cancelled. There is an onus on the operators to make sure that they can be reimbursed. Insurance can also kick in. In the last resort, there is also financial assistance that can be made available in the form of a loan, but of course that would have to be repaid on return.

Universal Credit

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

As I was saying, people should not just take our word for it. They should look at what the Children’s Society has said about those 1 million children who will not receive free school meals if the regulations come into force.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very persuasive case. In the Bradford district, more than 10,000 children who are living in poverty will miss out on free school meals, but Northern Ireland will be exempt from the same policy. Are not the Government putting their own political benefit before child poverty?

[Angela Rayner]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will come on to later in my contribution. As I said, those who are just above—