Apsana Begum MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Nov 2025 · House Building: London · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past years, I have been working with constituents and campaigners who have long been concerned about ongoing disempowerment in planning and development processes, and deregulation of the building and developer industry. Londoners and my constituents have been priced out, with increasing gentrification and affordable homes that are not only in shortage but all too often just not affordable. That is the legacy of the previous Tory Government and their previous Tory Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. That is why I warmly welcome the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, a much-needed law to increase tenants’ protections against unscrupulous and rogue landlords. That is also why I am concerned about the announced changes to affordable housing delivery in London, which will mean that developers can get fast-tracked planning permission for developments with just 20% affordable homes, compared with 35%, as had been the case for numerous years. I understand that the policy’s intention is to speed up the delivery of house building in London, but at what cost? For so many across London, including in my constituency, the 35% requirement was seen to be an injustice, in and of itself, that contributes to sustaining the housing crisis across London, with rising rates of homelessness, insufficient social housing, soaring rents and associated poor-quality housing. The announcement that the requirement will be reduced to 20% therefore feels like adding insult to injury. Constituents see no benefit to them, but more profits for developers, at a time when London is experiencing record levels of homelessness. Shelter has said that more than 97,000 children are homeless in temporary accommodation, as I know acutely from my constituency casework. The demand for social rent homes is at an all-time high. In asking questions to the Minister, I recognise that all that reflects the legacy and record left by the Tory party in government, but what alternative solutions to delivering social housing have been considered? Will there be any assessment of the impact of the 20% requirement on social housing supply in London? Importantly, how will social housing commitments in existing planning permissions in London be safeguarded and maintained to ensure that there is no reduction in the delivery of the social housing that Londoners need, in particular where developments are already approved? That is especially important in my constituency, where there has been a considerable delay to the Chrisp Street redevelopment plans. I am concerned that targets and previous commitments may not be honoured. It is my strong view, and the view of constituents who have contacted me over the years, that development should be focused on solving the existing housing crisis and be driven in the interests of local people. Rather than relying on developers and lowering ambitions on social housing, the priority in London ought to be increasing direct investment in social housing, particularly council housing, for the present as well as the future. Housing is a right, and we must all have safe, affordable and secure housing. We need investment and empowerment in our communities, and to resolve the housing crisis we need a mass building programme of social and particularly council housing.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the unions earlier. We could perhaps acknowledge that the Communication Workers Union has called out the clear mismanagement of the senior leadership and the need for Royal Mail to fix its recruitment retention crisis. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the issue is much wider across the sector in that it is vastly unregulated, creating an advantageous environment for parcel couriers such as Amazon? That has an impact on Royal Mail’s ability to deliver its services when it is being fined by Ofcom. Some see that as a very punitive measure, given that Amazon and other parcel couriers carry on unregulated and make no contribution to the universal network itself. They hive off profits and pay workers a pittance.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  The International Court of Justice has called on Israel to allow aid into Gaza, denounced its occupation of Palestinian territories as unlawful, and demanded the removal of troops. Does the Minister understand that as long as there are boots on the ground and UK arms are still sold to Israel, and unless Palestinians are allowed to determine their fate and be free of the violence that they continue to face, they will not have the peace that they need?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents voted for me to continue to oppose austerity, defend our local services, support survivors of violence and press for urgent immigration reform that centres migrant rights and ensures legal protection, survivor support and dignity in accommodation. That is why we have been alarmed by campaigns that target asylum seekers who are confined in hotels, including campaigns outside the Britannia hotel in my constituency. Some of those campaigns claim it is a five-star hotel with a swimming pool, which I know is definitely not the case. Anti-racist campaigners have reported co-ordinated efforts to intimidate communities with flag raising, anti-migrant chants, aggressive interventions in local debates, and even the filming of asylum seekers being transported to hotels. Charities and specialist organisations are warning that such campaigns are leading to the dehumanising of asylum seekers and cultivating climates of fear and division. Asylum seekers are men, women and children exercising their right to seek asylum after being forced to flee wars and persecution. I am very proud of our long history as a refuge for immigrant communities. Poplar and Limehouse is a place where people fleeing persecution, seeking work or simply looking for a new start have found a home and built communities. In Poplar and Limehouse, we know that it is not refugees and migrants, but austerity measures that have weakened local infrastructure and public services, leaving communities struggling with high costs and underfunded support—a situation that the far right frequently and unjustly blames on migrants and asylum seekers, despite repeated evidence to the contrary. What is that evidence to the contrary? Let me touch on a few examples. First, the UK’s current system forces asylum seekers to wait for over a year before they can apply for the right to work, and even then they are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list. Many survive on just less than £7 per day. That contrasts sharply with other European nations such as France, Spain and Germany, where asylum seekers gain the right to work after three to six months. Just last year, research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the asylum seekers work ban could reduce Government expenditure by £6.7 billion annually. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill retains harmful policies, including expanded powers of detention. An amendment to lift the work ban was tabled, but it was defeated, despite cross-party support. Asylum seekers must be able to work unconditionally; that would surely support integration, mental health and the overall economy. Secondly, the UK lacks accessible safe routes for refugees, forcing many to make perilous journeys. In February this year a report by the all-party parliamentary group on refugees found current routes to be “inaccessible and inadequate”. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill itself introduces counter-terror-style powers to criminalise smuggling networks that risk prosecuting refugees. Campaigners have labelled it an “anti-refugee” Bill. Surely we need an expansion of safe routes, the establishment of emergency visa schemes and the repeal of deterrent-based policies. Finally, the “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper, which proposes extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years, is creating uncertainty for migrants, while the immigration health surcharge unfairly targets migrant workers. People cannot access public funds anyway, but targeting them through the immigration health charge as well makes it essentially a punitive tax on people who are essential workers. We need to abolish the charge, reduce visa restrictions for care workers and reject the White Paper’s punitive measures as a whole. The UK really must be aware of the need to uphold its moral and legal obligations to protect refugees and prioritise humanity over hostility in the immigration system. From ending indefinite detention to creating safe routes, we need policies that reflect our values of dignity and compassion. That is why I will continue to push back against toxic narratives and stand up for solidarity, truth and the rights of all who live here. That commitment is in line with the traditions of solidarity in the east end of London, where we see diversity as a strength and all our communities include migrants from all around the world—where Jewish communities and allies opposed fascists at the battle of Cable street in 1936; where the murder of Altab Ali brought people out on the streets; where the Bangladeshi community led the anti-fascist mobilisation in the 1970s and where the communities on the Isle of Dogs defeated the division, intolerance and hate spread by the British National party in the 1990s. We know that hardship can be overcome collectively. That is why, as we look back on our rich history of welcoming refugees and migrants, we look to our present, fully aware that the far right is planning to target our area once again this week, on Saturday 25 October, amid a rise in racist, Islamophobic and antisemitic attacks—and where just a couple of years ago more than 700 people were evacuated from the East London Mosque, London Muslim Centre and nearby schools following a bomb threat. We will stand together in defiance on Saturday and we will say, “¡No pasarán! They shall not pass!”

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  In September of last year, the Government announced that they had suspended 30 arms export licences for Israel, with around 350 licences remaining active. The Government have repeatedly said that they were blocking the sale of items for use in Israel’s military assault in Gaza, but a new Channel 4 report has found that Israel imported nearly £1 million of UK munitions in the first nine months of this year, with a total of 110,000 items categorised as bullets going from the UK to Israel in August alone. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether UK-made munitions were used in Israel’s military assault in Gaza, and does he agree that a world of justice and lasting peace must be one without those bullets and bombs?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  Eighty-nine years ago this month, the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Mosley, tried to march through the largely Jewish east end of London. They were marched off by people of Jewish, Irish and working-class backgrounds in what became known as the battle of Cable Street, uniting in protest against antisemitism. Following this month’s horrific antisemitic attack, and amid a surge in the far right’s targeting of minorities and the attack at Peacehaven mosque, does the Home Secretary agree with me that we must tirelessly oppose fascism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and racism, and also protect the hard-worn democratic right to protest, which was crucial to defeating fascists in Cable Street in my area in a historic act of solidarity and unity in British history?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will be aware that I am listed in the House as an independent, not for matters relating to conduct or duty of candour, but for voting with my conscience to scrap the two-child limit— the scrapping of which is also supported by the former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Children’s Commissioner. My suspension from the Labour Whip was applied over a year ago, within minutes of my vote. Does she agree that while I and other Members, including the Mother of the House, appear to be held to one standard, Lord Mandelson appears to be held to another?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  I want to begin by saying that what is happening in Gaza and the ongoing situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is not just some random natural disaster. The UN-backed integrated food security phase classification has declared a man-made famine. Civilians are not starving; they are being starved. Israel stopped aid entering Gaza on 2 March and, since 9 March, all electricity has been cut off in Gaza. It is not enough to repeat the line that Israel must uphold international rights and standards in theory, when it is so clear that it is not doing so, has not been doing so and has effectively been given the go-ahead to continue not doing so. Quite frankly, the UK’s continued support and facilitation of that is shocking to my constituents and the majority of people in the UK. In the short time I have, I want to raise a point on UNRWA. The Knesset’s decision to ban Israeli officials from engaging with UNRWA, and UNRWA from working in East Jerusalem was wrong, according to what the Government said in January. They also said that if UNRWA found itself unable to operate, they would release a statement, which we have not had. Will the Minister ensure that that follows soon? I am speculating that the Minister will assert something along the lines that aid must get to where it is needed in theory. To be clear, aid is being blocked and hindered by Israel, the UK’s close and staunch ally. It is obvious that the best way to stop and to address that is not to provide political cover.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Neurodivergent People: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may be aware that prior to my election, I worked in diversity and inclusion, and what she says rings true. Does she agree that job coaching and mentoring is crucial in the workplace? It is crucial for anybody doing any job, but it is incredibly empowering and a supportive tool for those with neurodiversity, particularly in retaining them in the workplace. We can really learn in our country from coaching and mentoring; it is a vital tool for employees.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, not least because my constituents make up one of the highest proportions of signatories to the first petition, which calls on the Government to keep the five-year ILR pathway for existing skilled worker visa holders, so many of whom live with uncertainty—that is a daily reality in my constituency. The Government’s immigration White Paper proposes several measures that will make settlement significantly harder to reach for many people, including increasing the standard qualifying period for settlement from five years to 10 years—although the visa routes to which that will apply are not explicitly specified—and introducing the so-called earned settlement and citizenship model, whereby a set of contributions to society and the economy would serve as eligibility criteria for being able to settle more quickly. I understand that there are explicit exemptions for partners of British citizens, who will continue to qualify after five years, and quite rightly also for victims of domestic abuse. However, having met and spoken to many of my constituents, I seek urgent clarity from the Minister. Precisely who will be affected by the ILR proposals in the White Paper? Will they be applied retrospectively to people already in the UK, including those approaching the end of a five-year pathway to settlement? If a consultation is to take place in the autumn, who will it be with? Will the Government meet with Praxis, an organisation that has collated numerous pieces of evidence and undertaken research, and with which I share a long-standing relationship in my borough on immigration casework? It submitted a letter, along with 100 other civil liberties organisations, requesting a meeting with the Government in May this year. When will the Government conduct an equalities and human rights impact assessment of their proposals to extend the qualifying period to 10 years and introduce the so-called earned settlement model? Under that model, how will the points be calculated or earned, and how much of a reduction in the 10-year qualifying period will be available? Those are incredibly important questions, to which my constituents and many people in our country need answers. My constituents were already living in limbo before the White Paper was published, but given that applicants for the ILR route have primarily based their claims on the right to a family or private life, and given last week’s announcement of the suspension of the family reunification scheme for refugees, which we understand to be temporary—that is, of course, separate—they are feeling more anxious about these matters than ever before. I am worried about the widening scope and overall direction of immigration legislation and frameworks. There is already a strenuous process in place. Given that people on the existing 10-year routes have to apply every two and a half years until they complete 10 years of leave and are eligible for ILR, the new proposals beg the question what the intention really is. A survey undertaken in 2023 by the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, the Institute for Public Policy Research and Praxis found that 40% of those in work on the 10-year route were employed in health and social care settings, including as carers, nurses and cleaners. That will be no surprise to many of us given the history of migration to the UK, from the Windrush generation to the skilled workforces who arrived in waves, including in the 1970s, in areas like mine. According to the Migration Observatory’s analysis of Home Office data, the top five nationalities of applicants on these routes between 2016 and 2020 were Nigerian, Pakistani, Indian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi. I am afraid to say that it is no surprise, and it is not a coincidence, that in recent years, during the pandemic, black, Asian and minority ethnic people and women disproportionately suffered in terms of deaths, workplace rights and hardship. They of course include workers in health and social care settings. The pandemic laid bare the structures of inequality and discrimination. We have to be very careful about the proposed changes to the ILR route for those reasons as well. The petitions rightly point out that the skilled worker route is the main UK work visa route, and that includes the health and care worker sub-category for NHS staff. From what we know of the proposed measures in the immigration White Paper, they appear to be punitive. Wide-ranging evidence suggests that long pathways are detrimental to individuals and communities. No one should be subject to them. Rather than exemptions for some and not for others, we need a thorough overhaul of settlement and citizenship pathways so that people can settle in the UK in a timely and affordable way. People need to feel a sense of belonging and to be able to fulfil their potential. I fear that the proposals will undermine the resilience of our communities. Putting more people on extended routes will multiply the effects already being felt in our communities. In the east end of London, we have a proud history of welcoming people from all parts of the world and all walks of life, whether they are from Europe, Bangladesh, Somalia or even Hong Kong, because we know we are better for it. As to the proposals in the immigration White Paper, we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and change our direction.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In asking my question, I will update the House on the extraordinary situation that I continue to face in relation to my safety and security. It is just over a year since my ex-husband stood against me at the general election, after he was expelled from the Labour party last year for his treatment of me in a campaign of ongoing post-separation harassment and abuse—excuse me—with his stated aim of exposing who I really was and getting even with me. I continue to endure this on an ongoing basis, alongside the relentless attempts to unjustly remove me as an MP by a clique of his associates, who are still active and are seeking to stand for office at next year’s elections. The impact of all this is devastating and the wall of institutional gaslighting is incredibly chilling. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on domestic abuse and public life to enable us to explore the duty of care that should be placed on employers and political parties to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment in their roles, including those of us undertaking public service? I have been working with MPs from all political parties to call for this. Thank you.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Use of Drones in Defence · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member may be aware that some months ago a surgeon broke down while giving evidence to the International Development Committee describing what appeared to be some form of artificial intelligence or unmanned vehicles descending to shoot children in Gaza after bombing had occurred. Does he agree that drones should never be used to kill children? We must know whether drones developed or made in the UK that were exported to Israel before licences were suspended are being used to shoot children in Gaza.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  It is simply not enough at this stage to repeat the line about reminding Israel that international law requires the protection of healthcare workers, journalists and civilians —it is so clear that the Israeli Government are not doing that. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as a result of the UK’s ongoing political role as Israel’s close ally, UK weapons, including components, continue directly or indirectly to be sold to Israel? If he does not accept that, will he play a role in ensuring that no new Government contracts will be awarded to Elbit Systems UK, the central supplier of Israel’s military assault in Gaza? The ICC and ICJ are watching, and the UK has its own obligations under international law.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  In the east end of London, we have a proud history of welcoming refugees and migrants, many of them fleeing war and persecution, but over recent years and months, the political and media establishment has been complicit in the normalisation of Islamophobia and anti-migrant rhetoric. Over the summer, there have been campaigns to target asylum seekers outside hotels, and people have resorted to violent aggression, including yesterday in my constituency. That is putting all of us at risk. What exactly will the Home Secretary do to ensure that asylum seekers, refugees, migrants and all those who live in my constituency are safe from attempts—including those organised by the far right—to create fear and division in our area?