Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lauren Edwards]

I will make some progress. As acknowledged by organisations that provide that care, though, their services cannot address pain and suffering in all circumstances. During the passage of the Bill in the last parliamentary Session, we heard examples of the limits of palliative care from Members with medical expertise themselves.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will make some progress. We heard difficult stories about patients with bile duct cancer facing the prospect of faecal vomiting as their illness progressed. We listened as Members recounted memories of watching patients bleed to death while conscious, cancer having eaten away at their carotid artery. We felt their frustration when the maximum dose of sedatives could not alleviate the choking and suffocation of someone with peritoneal cancer. Those people deserved choice and a dignified end, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards]

I would point out that there is a range of views among those in the palliative care community. It is specifically for that reason that the Bill allows them not to be involved in the process if they do not wish to be.

[Imran Hussain]

Will my hon. Friend be generous enough to give way on that point?

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I am sorry.

I end with the words of Elise Burns, who, like me, called Kent home, and who sadly died in July with secondary cancer of the lungs, liver and bones. She said she would love peers

“to look me in the eye and tell me why me and my friends, and anyone with terminal illness, don’t deserve to die with dignity and to have the choice to die…without pain.”

We owe it to terminally ill people like Elise, who are relying on us and who were so filled with hope when we voted in favour last time. Quite rightly, they cannot understand how, having secured the support of the people they elected to represent them, the issue that is so important to them has been frustrated by a small group of people with no democratic mandate.

The important conversation that we have been having on assisted dying, as legislators and as a society, has been interrupted. To leave it so would have a profoundly negative impact on people’s trust in our political system. If we fail to support the Bill’s Second Reading, are we not saying that it is fine for a minority of unelected peers to defy the will of the House of Commons? Are we really prepared to cede that point and accept the consequences not only for this vital legislation but for future legislation too?

I ask hon. Members to join me in sending a clear message that the will of this Chamber should be respected, on behalf of all the people that we represent, and to support this Bill on Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) has spoken most movingly, and we know that many of us are very conflicted on this issue. We have to respect each other and show compassion—we know what this debate is all about. No one side has a monopoly on compassion.

I will say in a moment why I believe in being assisted to die in a dignified way, but will the House forgive me if I start with an essential legal point? We know that what this is all about is ensuring that the Bill we are debating today leaves the House unamended so that the Parliament Act can be imposed. The Isle of Man had an assisted dying Bill, which, like this Bill, left a lot to delegated powers. The Ministry of Justice concluded that this meant that that Bill was not compatible with the European convention on human rights. When the result of the private Member’s Bill ballot was published, three former Attorneys General of both parties—Baroness Scotland, Dominic Grieve and Baroness Prentis—wrote to the promoter to urge her not to present the same Bill, as it would run into the same legal and constitutional difficulties. It is unfortunate that that offer has not been taken up, and we have to ask why.

Let me give my own personal views as briefly as possible. I will surprise the House by saying that I am in favour of assisted dying. I am in favour of the idea that when I, or when any of us, approach our last moments, we go into a hospice and are assisted to die. That is what doctors and nurses do all the time. I have been very impressed by what our Prime Minister has said on this issue—he has not been mentioned yet. It is about ensuring that everybody receives excellent palliative care, as we see in our hospices like St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln. So we are agreed on that.

[Imran Hussain]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I have been told to be brief.

I am in favour of our being assisted to die as painlessly as possible, and every palliative care nurse and doctor I have ever talked to has made it clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is possible. Of course, we can be anaesthetised, as we all are when we have operations. I hear the argument, but I believe that we need to improve palliative care.

What worries me about the Bill—this is my point—is that I do not believe that it will be just an assisted dying Bill; I think that in time, it will become an assisted suicide Bill. I have mentioned the ECHR. What is the logic of the Bill? We all know it is terrible if you have a terminal cancer prognosis, but what if you are clinically depressed? What if you are quadriplegic? What if you are sentenced to a lifetime of being unable to move your arms or legs? What if you know, as a member of our family in Canada does, that you will get more and more dementia, so you take the assisted dying route? The truth is that we cannot differentiate between these conditions that make life unbearable for many people. I make this prediction: if this Bill goes through—if the Parliament Act ensures that it does—I believe that in 10 years’ time we will be in similar situation to Canada, and very large numbers of people will be choosing assisted dying.

We hear a lot that this country is broken, and that the elite is ruining the country. I think that is rubbish. This country is not broken. The reason we are under pressure is that there are too many of us—too many old people; too many people with multiple health conditions. There is tremendous pressure on the NHS; we know that. We heard a lot from my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) about coercion. We have also heard that coercion is not necessarily external; it can be internal. I believe that if we move to a society in which assisted suicide is the norm, vast numbers of people will take it up. Is that really the sort of society that we want?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

The last time this House considered this Bill on Second Reading, I was keeping a secret. While hon. and right hon. Members were debating the issue, I was grappling with my own terminal diagnosis. I was told that I have stage 4 incurable metastatic breast cancer. I was overwhelmed with grief, fear and anxiety; I was scared of what was to come, and fearful of how it would impact my family and my loved ones. I was scared that I was going to get really poorly and thinking, “How will I cope? How will my family cope? How will I be cared for? How will I afford it? How badly will it hurt? How long will it last?”

When you hear those words, depression, anxiety, grief, fear, shame and guilt come in bounds. Suicide risk is highest immediately after diagnosis, and it usually falls quickly, within three to six months. I would be lying if I said that when thinking about all that was to come, I did not consider that it might be fairer and easier on everyone if I just got the dying over with as soon as possible. Having treatable depression, however, will not exclude anyone from an assisted death under this Bill, and depression is common among people with terminal illness, but it is often treatable. Clinicians are trained to prevent suicide in people suffering from depression, but where would the line be drawn? This Bill makes no provision to support this difficult transition, or to create safeguards around it.

A person can also be suicidal and have unmet mental health needs prior to developing a terminal illness, and then ask the state to kill them without any assessment of their psychological health, just an assessment of their mental capacity—because mental capacity and mental health are not the same thing. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends a holistic, multidisciplinary assessment of every applicant. The three-person panel at the end of the assessment process provided for by this Bill is not what most NHS clinicians recognise as a multidisciplinary team; it certainly does not allow for meaningful multidisciplinary decision making. The assessment needs to happen at the beginning of the process, not the end, and each team member should be independently assessing the patient in person. That is not what is included in this Bill.

I do not know how long I will live. I will be on treatment for life, however long or short that may be. At the moment, I live between scans, in nine to 12-week blocks of time. The last scan might have shown that the disease is stable, but the next scan might show that it is growing again. If the disease is stable, the drug is working and we can carry on. Eventually, the drug will stop working, the cancer will grow, and we will have to try another drug and see if that works. At some point, we will either run out of drugs to try, or I will be too poorly to tolerate them—then I die. It could be months. It could be years. No one really knows. Prognosis is notoriously difficult to predict. Palliative care professionals and oncologists tell me that while they can more or less give me an indication of when I will die when I am a few days or weeks off, anything beyond that is the flip of a coin. The six-month prognosis in this Bill is something no one can ever be really sure of. What the palliative care professionals have told me is that palliative care can help me when I die.

In the campaign around this Bill, though, it seems to me that it is being implied that a person with a terminal illness will have a dreadful, painful death unless they have access to assisted dying. That is simply not true; palliative care in the UK is excellent. Far too many people do not have access to the palliative care they need, but the idea that it is not possible to alleviate pain and discomfort is false. People have been terrorised—I have been terrorised—with tales of people vomiting up their own faeces, as though this is commonplace during death. It is vanishingly rare. Bowel obstructions are more common, but they are treatable. I know—I have had one. It is nothing short of irresponsible to scaremonger people like me into believing our deaths will be horrific when all the evidence suggests that, with access to good palliative care, deaths are, on the whole, gentle.

The answer is not to terrify people and their families. It is to sort out palliative care and social care first, because none of this takes place in a vacuum. Until we can say that everyone who needs it has access to high-quality palliative care, we are offering nobody a choice. A terrible death or an assisted death is not a choice; it is a threat.

While I speak today from the position of someone with a terminal illness, I am acutely aware that this is not about me. This debate is also not about an abstract concept or a position of principle. The question that will be put at the end of this debate will not be, “That this House has considered the question of assisted dying.” It will not even be, “That this House agrees with the principle of assisted dying.” The question will be, “That the Bill be now read a Second time”—this Bill, not the Bill it might have been, not the Bill that Members might have hoped it would be, and not the Bill it could be. This Bill is the only thing before us today. Incidentally, there is absolutely nothing before us about the House of Lords. That is not the question we are being asked.

Whatever hon. or right hon. Members think about the principle of assisted dying, surely our first and foremost responsibility is to write law that is safe and workable. Not one of the professional bodies that would be tasked with delivering the Bill is willing to attest that it is, as it stands, safe or workable. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the Royal College of Physicians all say that the Bill is seriously inadequate. They are not opposed to assisted dying in principle, but they cannot support this Bill.

Instead of bringing a Bill identical to the last, so that the Parliament Acts can be used and the Bill can be forced unamended on to the statute book, why did the proposers not spend the summer working with the royal medical colleges, the professional bodies and organisations to build a Bill that they could support? If they had done that, it would have been difficult for anyone opposed to the principle to argue against the Bill. But they did not do that.

This is not about sides. This House is not a debating society; it is about making the law. While we may be campaigners out there, in here we are all legislators. It is our responsibility not to pick a side and dig in, but to work together to build the best laws that we can, and that is never truer than with a private Member’s Bill on a matter of conscience.

[Imran Hussain]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ashley Dalton]

No, I will not. This Bill does not protect the most vulnerable. It does not mitigate against the poor, the old, people with disabilities, or black and minority ethnic people being disproportionately affected. It does not protect people who are mentally ill. It does not recognise that not everyone has the same level of agency, control or influence over their decision making. The clinicians we would ask to deliver this Bill are saying that it is not even workable—that there is every expectation that it would not even work for the terminally ill people who want an assisted death either.

And there would be no stopping it. Auto-commencement means that if the Bill is passed by the Commons and pushed through via the Parliament Acts, it has to happen on the stroke of four years after being passed. Even if the Government or the NHS are not ready, even if there is no funding, even if palliative care is still broken, and even if it is known to be dangerous, flawed or unworkable, then it is still happening, ready or not.

This is not a last-chance saloon. This debate has been going on for years. It is not a once-in-a-generation opportunity; it could come back again in the next Parliament. My days may be numbered, but that does not mean that I want this Chamber to rush through bad law, just so I might have a chance to see it or use it. This matter is of huge importance. If hon. and right hon. Members have any doubt that the exact Bill before us today is not the best it could be—if it is anything less than excellent, well thought-out and robustly drafted legislation that protects the vulnerable and recognises the expertise of our world-class clinicians—and that it is not the Bill that I and other terminally ill people deserve, then I urge them to vote no or to abstain.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend probably has more lived experience of the criminal justice system than many others in this Chamber. She has been a doughty campaigner on issues for ethnic minorities across our country for many years. I can give her that reassurance, and I will come to that point a little later in my speech. It is right that there will be a review, so that we understand exactly how our reforms—and, indeed, our criminal justice system in a deeper and better way—are affecting ethnic minority populations. I hope that she will engage in the ambit, scope and direction of that review.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to set out the importance of jury trials as a cornerstone of our democracy and justice system. They are in place for a very good reason. In the Lammy review, he previously emphasised the importance of jury trials and, in particular, the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. What has changed?

[Mr Lammy]

I know that when my hon. Friend is upset, his baritone deepens—it was not quite as deep today as it has been on other occasions. He will know that I take very seriously the review I did. I will say more about disparities in a moment, but if we look at that review, we see that it was clear that there is tremendous public trust in our juries. When I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities and among some ethnic minority populations about situations where they perceived they had an all-white jury. They asked whether it was still fair. Broadly, it was found to still be fair, and there was no evidence that there were unfair trials in our magistrates courts, which do 90% of the work, or if a single judge is sitting on their own. For the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), it is right that we review how the system is working and fully understand how these changes will affect the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the Bar.

I rise to oppose the plan to curtail jury trials, because restricting jury trials is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Trial by jury is not some quaint tradition that we can trade away when Ministers feel the pressure. As has been said, it is one of the great democratic safeguards in our justice system; it allows ordinary citizens to be judged by their peers and the power of the state to be held in check. It is dangerous to challenge that principle, because there is a reason for it: the balance between the state and the citizen. History teaches us that changing that balance in favour of the state is a dangerous road to go down. The power that we are giving the state is not simply the power for it to issue a fine; we are talking about people losing their liberty.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I, too, am a passionate believer in the jury system, but Sweden—which is No. 1 in the World Justice Project’s global rankings—does not use jury trials at all, and neither do Norway, Germany or the Netherlands. In France, Denmark and Canada, only the most serious cases are dealt with by juries. My hon. Friend is not suggesting that those countries do not have liberty, is he?

[Imran Hussain]

What I am saying is that there is a reason that we protect this liberty—this cornerstone of our system of justice and democracy. When we see this much of a change in state power, I will tell my hon. Friend who is at the receiving end first: it is black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, working-class communities, elderly communities and women who are disproportionately impacted.

[Warinder Juss]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the restriction of jury trials in some cases is just one among a whole range of measures, and that in order to protect really vulnerable victims—for example, rape victims, who will have a jury trial—we need to make the process quicker? That necessarily means that, for some other cases, the decision to take away juries is a measure to protect the most vulnerable.

[Imran Hussain]

These are not competing interests. I thank all hon. Members who have made brave and passionate speeches today—I salute their courage. Of course we want to see justice delivered to victims as soon as possible, but there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that curtailing jury trials will do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) addressed that point with great passion.

Let us be clear about what the proposals mean in practice. The Government are suggesting that people could face lengthy prison sentences following judge-only processes in a new category of so-called swift courts. Frankly, that should send a chill through every democrat in this country. Ministers claim that this is about efficiency, but no argument has been put forward in this debate to support that. Restricting jury trials would deliver only limited time savings in the Crown court system—hon. Members have made that case time and again today.

The core point is that undermining fundamental rights will not fix a backlog caused by years of under-investment, court closures, reduced capacity and a criminal justice system stretched to breaking point. Ministers have published impact assessments, but they have still not shown that curtailing jury trials will meaningfully solve a backlog caused by years of under-resourcing.

[Jonathan Davies]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. He is making important points about potential overreach of the state. Might I suggest that this is not the end for the Bill and that if there are concerns—people are rightly raising issues—we can progress them in Committee and at subsequent stages to ensure that the Bill is where it needs to be to retain public trust.

[Imran Hussain]

I will come to that point. I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not get an extra minute for taking an intervention—will I get one?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

indicated dissent.

[Imran Hussain]

Okay. Perhaps I have been too generous with my time.

The real fear is that these changes will not simply speed things up but change how justice is done. In the limited time I have—it is a tragedy that I have only three minutes to speak in a debate of this magnitude, amending cornerstones of our democracy—I ask the Justice Secretary to take advice from the Member he was a number of years ago, when he made some of the most powerful arguments for the jury system. I ask him to look back at his old self.

Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Byrne]

I thank the hon. Member for those valid points.

The third aspect of the Hillsborough law would make new offences of wilfully failing to discharge the duty to fully assist inquiries, or intentionally or recklessly misleading the public or media. That would be an absolute game changer and would transform the country for the better.

That leads me to the current situation. In the 2024 King’s Speech, the Government pledged to bring forward legislation to enshrine a duty of candour for public servants. They called it the Hillsborough law, and it was what was promised in the manifesto that I, and many Members present, proudly stood on in the 2024 general election. We thought it was the same legislation as the Hillsborough law that was first brought to Parliament by Andy Burnham in 2017 and written by Pete Weatherby KC and Elkan Abrahamson, two prominent lawyers who have represented Hillsborough families for decades and continue to work with the Hillsborough law campaign. The Government promised that they would ensure that public officials tell the truth and proactively co-operate with investigations. They also promised parity of legal representation for bereaved families. I, as lead for the Hillsborough law campaign in Parliament, and all the campaigners connected with it over the years, were delighted by that commitment, which the Government promised to deliver by the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough on 15 April this year.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who the whole House will agree is making an excellent and powerful contribution. I congratulate him on all the hard work that he has done to advance this issue. He is right to set out the essentials of any Bill, including the duty of candour, criminal responsibility, and the criminal sanctions to follow. Does he agree that any attempt to water down the Bill in any way will be rejected and be unacceptable to the House?

[Ian Byrne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point—I agree 100%.

The Government’s promise to deliver that commitment by the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough was broken. Instead, they offered a watered-down version of the legislation, stripped of its moral force and legal teeth. Lawyers who drafted the original Bill refused to endorse it, negotiations stalled, and once again the families were let down. It felt a continuation of the betrayal by the state. Although the Paymaster General told me in this place in July that the Government remain “fully committed” to introducing a Hillsborough law, we still have no clarity on when or how those provisions will be enacted. There have been plenty of warm words, but warm words do not deliver justice—action does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The impact of the Crown courts backlog is being felt by domestic abuse victims and small businesses, so we have a real job to do to restore confidence in our criminal justice system. That is why we gripped the crisis by putting in place an extra 110,000 Crown court sitting days—a record number. We understand, however, that we will need fundamental reform to address the backlog, and that is what we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to support the rehabilitation of people convicted of knife crime offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Halving knife crime is a moral mission for the Government. Every young person caught with a knife is referred to a youth offending team, and Turnaround is very successful in diverting youngsters on the cusp of crime away from offending. Alongside that, the Government will roll out prevention partnerships and Young Futures hubs.

[Imran Hussain]

I welcome the Minister’s answer. Knife crime ruins lives and devastates communities; rightly, those responsible must be held accountable. If we are serious about preventing reoffending, however, we also need structured, credible rehabilitation, the focus of which must be on prevention and diversionary activities. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on boxing, I have seen how grassroots boxing clubs offer something different—structure, community and hope—that is of particular benefit to young people. I ask the Minister to meet me to discuss how boxing can be a key part of successfully rehabilitating offenders.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). Like many hon. and right hon. Members in this House, I have genuinely agonised over which way to vote on this issue, because I have changed my mind over the years, largely influenced by constituents coming into surgeries or informing me about their own deeply personal experiences. That includes horrific stories of seeing loved ones in their final days, but I also recall a lady whose mother did go to Dignitas. She said that it was a decision that she thought was absolutely right at the time, yet, since then, she has regretted helping her mother with that every single day of her life, and believes that she helped contribute towards her death. Therefore, these are very complex and deeply personal issues. I also respect the more than 1,000 constituents who have contacted me about this issue over the last few weeks.

I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of two people who I greatly admire: Dame Esther Rantzen and Tanni Grey-Thompson. I got to know Dame Esther Rantzen in unusual circumstances, when we stood against each other in Luton South in the 2010 general election. Well, it did not end well for either of us. Tanni Grey-Thompson, of course, I got to know very well as the sports Minister. They are on different sides of this debate, but I appreciate their contributions, which show that people can productively use their profiles and personalities in order to contribute to debates. However, I am afraid, Esther Rantzen, I do love you, but I respectfully disagree with you on this issue.

I know that every MP wants to do the right thing on this issue today. No one side has a monopoly on compassion. All of us want to make the right decision, and this is not an easy choice. Every now and again in this place, we have the awesome responsibility of making decisions that we know could ease suffering or could cost or save lives. This is one such decision—this is one such vote. If I am making such a choice—making a decision that will inevitably lead to the shortening of life—I want to be absolutely confident that I am doing so for the right reasons and that the risks and unintended consequences are minimised, and I am afraid that this Bill does not meet that high confidence bar.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will not, out of respect for everybody else who wishes to speak.

At some point in the future, a Bill with different words, stronger safeguards and a more robust impact assessment, perhaps brought forward through a different parliamentary route, might pass that confidence test. This Bill does not. But it may well pass, and I have joined others in arguing and voting for enhancements to safeguards, particularly for the disabled, those with eating disorders or mental health problems, those who may feel that they are a burden and, of course, the vulnerable, who are exposed to the risk of coercion. I believe that some improvements have been made to the Bill, but not enough. I continue to have significant concerns about the potential for assisted dying to be abused and to be extended way beyond the originally intended scope.

Finally, I must mention one area of disappointment, in what has otherwise been an extremely respectful debate, and that is about the tone of some of the discussions and the somewhat dismissive attitude that has been expressed towards those with religious beliefs, as though such beliefs are not valid in this debate. They absolutely are. Those who express a belief in God and the sanctity of life should be respected, not sneered at. It is perfectly legitimate for religious beliefs to influence one’s views on assisted dying. Otherwise, this debate has been largely respectful and has indeed shown the House at its best. Again, I would like to thank all my constituents who have contacted me. While I know that some will disagree with the decision and the vote I will cast today, I hope they recognise that I have tried to exercise my judgment carefully and in good faith, as indeed has every colleague in this House.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is perfectly right to underline the importance of equality before the law. He gives me the opportunity to give a plug to the independent review of sentencing being conducted by David Gauke with an independent panel, which will address the issues that he has raised.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

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

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to contrast the approach of the soundbites from the shadow Justice Secretary with the Justice Secretary’s approach of rolling up her sleeves and getting on with the job of sorting out the mess left in our prisons, Probation Service and courts.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Imran Hussain Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

There needs to be a debate around palliative care. My concern is that we have not had any firm commitments from Government, other than woolly words, about how they are actually going to tackle the issue, and that a royal commission will push it into the long grass.

I say to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who is in his place, that the gauntlet has been thrown down. If he wants someone like me to not vote for the Bill moving forward, he needs to do two things: he needs to put firm commitments on palliative care on the table and resolve them within the next one or two years, and then, afterwards, commit to bringing back a Bill like this one in Government time. Without those firm commitments, I will continue to make the case for wanting to see progress.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)]

The hon. Lady and I come to this subject from different places, as I will be voting against the Bill. I agree with her and all the hon. Members who have spoken about the need to massively improve palliative care, but she says we can address some of those concerns at a later stage. How does one address coercion and guilt through legislation?

[Layla Moran]

These are conversations that I want to keep happening, but I say to those who are making the argument about the process and asking how we can make that better, what does a Bill that addresses assisted dying that they might vote for look like? If the answer is that there is none, let us be honest about that.

I want to end by giving a tiny amount of my time to someone who is in the Gallery today. Tracey, I cannot see you right now, but thank you for coming. I said to Tracey, my constituent, when we met that I would allow some of her words to be spoken today. Tracey was 58 when she was diagnosed with incurable stage 4 breast cancer, which spread to become a brain tumour in 2023. It was successfully removed, but Tracey lives every day knowing that her cancer is likely to return. These are the words Tracey wants us to hear:

“Despite this prognosis I can honestly say that I am a happy person now. I feel lucky to have made it to 60. There is just one black cloud on the horizon for me, and it is the way that I will die. I am terrified that I will suffer a long, painful death. If I knew I had the choice to have a good death, these worries would disappear. Please change the law so I can live what life I have left, safe in the knowledge that I have a choice about how and when I die. If you do this, I will be able to live even more happily today knowing that I do not need to worry about the prospect of a cruel and painful death.”

I will end by saying that there are sincerely held views being heard today. Let this be this Parliament that ensures, regardless of how we vote today, that we give people a good death.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Since I last raised this question with Ministers, it has now been estimated that there are more than 10,000 victims of the SSB Law scandal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) said, we are hosting an event later today to listen to those victims talk about the real impact on their lives—I extend an invitation to the Minister. Will he commit to my asks of real compensation and protection for the victims of what is now a national scandal?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that kind invitation. I will consider it and respond in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Not for the first or last time, my hon. and learned Friend has got absolutely to the point. We have deliberately constructed the policy so that if an individual presents a significant threat to a particular individual—often a spouse or a partner—the presumption would not apply. That is critically important and I was happy to discuss that point with Women’s Aid and other relevant bodies. We are on the side of victims of domestic abuse and violence, and nothing that we do will cut across that important principle.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Supporting offenders in practising their faith is regularly cited as playing a key role in their rehabilitation in prisons. However, as the Minister will know from my frequent correspondence with the chief executive of His Majesty’s Prison Service, many prisons either do not provide the facilities required or actively hinder offenders in practising their religion. HMP Full Sutton has been brought to my attention as one such example. Given its importance, will the Minister assure me that a full review of faith provision across the prison estate will be conducted and guarantee that no one will be denied the ability to freely practise their religion?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely right to highlight not only the right of people to practise their religion, but the important role that that can play for those individuals in coping with prison life, rehabilitation and getting on the straight and narrow when they come out. I am happy to engage with him directly on any specific case that he wishes to bring up, and it is an issue that I am happy to look at.

Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Imran Hussain Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments (b) and (h). On Monday night, the Prime Minister made a speech setting out a vision for a foreign policy with morality and values at its heart. However, the absence of anything in the King’s Speech that even comes close to promoting the UK as a positive and outward looking nation shows that this Government embody neither morality nor values.

A foreign policy with morality at its heart would not leave over 2 million Palestinians trapped in a humanitarian nightmare without food, water, medicine or power. A foreign policy that puts values first would not be following the direction set by Washington and the United States in addressing this conflict. A foreign policy that is built on morality would not stand by as over 11,000 Palestinians are killed, more than 27,000 are wounded and 7,500 women and children have their lives taken from them, or as schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, refugee camps and homes are reduced to rubble. A foreign policy that is driven by values would not still be advocating the four-hour pauses that do nothing to alleviate the suffering of innocent men, women and children, and do nothing to end the violence that those living in the region have faced for decades. A foreign policy of morality and values would also not leave the Government unable to answer just how many Palestinian lives will be taken before they condemn the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza that continue to violate international law—acts of collective punishment that clearly fall within the definition of war crimes.

Instead, a foreign policy of morality and values would, front and centre, advocate a ceasefire that ends the bloodshed, allows desperately needed aid to reach those most in need and creates space following the safe return of hostages from meaningful negotiations on a lasting peace. With over 11,000 Palestinian civilians and 1,200 Israelis killed since 7 October, and tens of thousands more wounded, it is clear to me, the United Nations and every single aid agency operating on the ground in Gaza that a humanitarian pause does not do enough and does not go far enough. The innocent men, women and children of Gaza who are trapped in the never-ending nightmare of conflict, which they did not start and have no power to end, do not need a pause—they need it to stop. The only way we can achieve that is with a real and immediate ceasefire. I remain clear in my belief that that is the right thing to do and the right choice to make if we want to see both an end to the bloodshed and a lasting peace in the region, which no humanitarian pause will ever be able to achieve. That is why I stood down from the Opposition Front Bench.

I also advocate for a ceasefire rather than brief humanitarian pauses, because without a ceasefire—without a real break in the fighting—we will just see the unimaginable suffering, horror, death, destruction and devastation continue to unfold in Gaza. Without a ceasefire, the bloodshed that has already left thousands of innocent civilians dead and has wounded so many more—that has left children without parents, robbed parents of their children, and seen premature babies left to die outside their incubators—will tragically continue. Without a ceasefire, the desperately needed aid and assistance that Palestinians urgently need and cry out for—food, water, fuel and medicine—will not be able safely to enter Gaza. We will not be able to reach those who are most in need, and that will lead to the deaths of many hundreds and thousands more.

Without a ceasefire, the negotiations working towards a peaceful resolution and a real two-state solution, for which the region cannot wait any longer, will simply not have the space or the will to succeed. That is why I support the ceasefire amendments, and why I shall continue to advocate for a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, to enable desperately needed aid to reach those most in need, and to create space for meaningful negotiations.