Council Housing

Debate between Imran Hussain and Chris Hinchliff

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff]

I completely agree. We have seen for many years that the market cannot solve this problem. In fact, it speaks to a rotten lack of ambition that the political response to children living in cramped, damp and overcrowded conditions has so often been to demand that we lower our expectations for the future, promising that the only way to get families out of temporary accommodation is to reduce insulation standards, concrete over the countryside and ignore risks such as flooding and the lack of infrastructure. Then, it might be more profitable for developers to cast their crumbs down to our communities. What a tragic irony that we are told that the only way to rescue families from low-quality emergency housing is by lowering the standards of the permanent homes we build instead. The problem was never that our standards were too high. It was the surrender to neoliberal capitalism and the lack of political will that accompanied its hollowing out of our state’s capacity to function that stopped the building of decent, affordable homes at scale.

Secondly, it is worth paraphrasing Keynes early on in this debate by reiterating that claiming it does not pay to house the people of this country in affordable, high-quality housing is one of the most dismal notions ever advanced by modern economics. We have the technology and the capacity to house everyone safely, comfortably and in beautiful surroundings. If private capital says it is not profitable enough to do so, the problem is with the economic model, not with the hope for our nation’s future.

Having dispensed with those points, before we get to the question of how, I want to dwell briefly on the possibilities of a future in which the Labour Government achieve their council housing goals. When we debate this subject, we often focus—and rightly so—on the immediate crisis and urgent need that council housing can alleviate, but the power of council housing to transform the future of our society does not end there.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this timely and important debate and for the excellent speech that he is making. Although he briefly touched on the urgent need before moving on to the longer-term situation, does he agree that in places like Bradford, where we currently have 25,000 people on a waiting list—many are families with young children living in poverty and the same squalid, damp conditions that he mentions—there is an immediate, urgent need? Therefore, as well as asking the Minister how many—

[Imran Hussain]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the urgent need requires immediate housebuilding?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I agree; my hon. Friend is absolutely right about the immediate need, which I will come to later.

This is a slightly incongruous point, but I am sure that, like me, every hon. Member in the Chamber visits schools in their constituency often. When I see the potential in pupils such as those at Little Hadham primary school, where I was last, I cannot help but contemplate what future we are building for them. If it is one in which hundreds of thousands of council homes have been built in every community—and I do mean in our most rural villages as well as our greatest cities—for people of every background, including doctors, academics, farm workers, bus drivers, bin men and bar staff, then what our country will be able to offer them will be far greater than the prospects that adulthood currently holds.

Digital ID

Debate between Imran Hussain and Chris Hinchliff

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

There is a reason why millions of people have signed this petition, making it the fourth largest in the history of this place. At the heart of this debate is an attack on our most fundamental and protected of rights: our freedom. We live in a free country, and we do not need a nanny state indirectly spying on its citizens.

A compulsory digital ID or a national ID card scheme is not a small administrative tweak that will make lives slightly easier for people; it is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Like many others in this place, I have serious concerns about what that means for civil liberties, for privacy and for equality in this country. No Government should ever hold a master key to every part of a citizen’s life, and we cannot pretend that such power could never fall into dangerous hands.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as usual. Does he agree, from the clear argument across the Chamber, that constituents are overwhelmingly unconvinced by the proposed benefits of this scheme and overwhelmingly concerned by the disbenefits; and that therefore the Minister should commit today to ensuring that at the end of the consultation, the Government have the option of not taking this any further?

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a reason why millions have signed this petition. The Minister should commit to scrapping it today, but I am not sure he will.

As is the case for many hon. Members, thousands of my constituents have quite rightly signed this petition because they know that they are already at the sharp end of state systems that do not always treat them fairly. Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, migrants, older and disabled people, those on low incomes and those who are digitally excluded—these are the people who will feel the impact first if we rush headlong into a digital ID system without thinking through the consequences.

We have already seen how data can be misused, both in our country and across the world. In the wrong circumstances, information given in good faith to access childcare, education, healthcare or support can end up being misused. Frankly, trust in our institutions has been eroding for years now.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Imran Hussain and Chris Hinchliff

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is an absolute honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and I know the whole House will join me in thanking him for all the work that he has done in shaping the Bill before us today.

The Employment Rights Bill, which I am also proud to have played a small part in shaping, represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The Bill is a testament to the values that we stand for: a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; dignity; protection; bargaining powers for workers; and a safety net for the most vulnerable when they need it the most.

There is much to celebrate in the Bill, as we have heard in the many excellent contributions today. I have also put my name to many of the amendments that we have heard hon. Members speak to in the House. I do feel that all of them are designed to strengthen the Bill further. However, given the time constraints, I shall focus my remarks on my amendments relating to statutory sick pay.

As we all know, and as has been said very eloquently today, the current system of statutory sick pay is not just insufficient, but completely and inexcusably broken. We have the worst system in Europe, which is shameful. Workers are entitled to just 17% of the average weekly wage, yet the cost of living does not suddenly plunge by 83% when they are sick. Their rent, their energy bills and their grocery tabs are not discounted, so why does SSP remain such a paltry sum? Being forced to survive on £118.75 a week—if they are lucky enough to get that in the first place—leaves workers exposed to financial hardship. It forces many to make the difficult decision to go to work when they are unwell.

It is therefore quite right that the Government have put forward major, necessary and welcome reforms. They include: removing the three-day waiting period, so that workers are entitled to sick pay from day one of illness; and extending sick pay to all workers by removing the lower earnings limit and implementing a fair earnings replacement percentage of 80%.

These reforms will directly benefit more than a million low-paid workers, a disproportionate number of whom continue to be those from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, women and young people. There is much more that we can do to strengthen the Bill, which is why I have tabled two amendments, which will do just that and ensure that no worker is left behind. Amendment 7 calls for sick pay to be aligned with the national living wage. Let me make it clear that uprating SSP is popular with businesses as well as with workers. Six in 10 employers agree that the rate is simply too low for workers to survive on. We know that because the poverty rate among those claiming SSP is more than double that among the overall working population.

Amendment 7 makes it clear that if a person is working full time, they should not be paid poverty wages when they are unwell. No one should have to choose between their health and their financial security, which is why my amendment would immediately raise SSP to around 67% of the average weekly wage, putting us on a par with many of our European counterparts.

My new clause 102 is about ensuring fairness. Although I welcome the Government’s proposed system, the reality is that 300,000 workers may actually end up worse off than they are today. Those who earn slightly above the current lower earnings limit of £123 up to £146 per week would receive 80% of their earnings, which is lower than the SSP rate that they would receive today.

We cannot allow anyone to be left behind. Although removing the waiting period puts more money in people’s pockets from the beginning of the illness period, workers taking more than four weeks off due to long-term conditions, going through cancer treatment, recovering from serious operations or suffering from mental health crises will face the biggest losses under the new system.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Research has found that the cost of presenteeism to the private sector in mental ill health alone is £24 billion a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that shows that reforming our statutory sick pay is the most pro-prosperity, pro-productivity policy that we can pursue?

[Imran Hussain]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes the case brilliantly against some of the nonsense arguments about productivity that we have heard from the Conservative Benches today. It is the right thing to do, but also it will lead to much improved productivity and a better, healthier, happier workforce, as well as being much better for the employer.

My amendment and new clause would ensure that every worker receives, at the very least, the same amount of sick pay that they would have done under the current system, and not a penny less. I urge the Government to support them, as they are very much in the spirit of this legislation.