Apsana Begum MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), on securing this important debate. The issues raised in her Committee’s recent report speak strongly to the experiences of thousands of my constituents in Poplar and Limehouse, which is the constituency with the highest percentage of leasehold homes. Like members of the Committee, I am not just alarmed but very angry about what many constituents have to go through to get even basic repairs and maintenance done. Far too many of them have to deal with uncommunicative —sometimes even rude or dismissive—managing agents, who can offer no clarity on maintenance works, and who delay necessary repairs again and again. To give a recent example, in the heatwaves, constituents living in Royal Captain Court in my constituency have endured the most horrible conditions. The lifts were forced into fire safety mode because of the extreme heat in the tower, which is not air-conditioned. One resident fainted on the staircase, and dozens of others suffered in the temperatures. Residents have said that until the BBC reported on the case, they received no replies from the managing agent Sanctuary about how, when or if repairs would be done. The issue of lift breakdowns is common in my constituency, and will occur more and more as climate change intensifies. On top of that, as we all know, service charges and fees are going through the roof. One constituent recently contacted me to say that their service charges rose by 12% in the last year, after doubling in the decade up to that point. Residents of Aberfeldy Village in my constituency are reporting service charge increases of £600,000 by FirstPort, and residents of the Wapping Lane development report that Ballymore increased their service charges from £7,000 in 2014 to £17,000 this year. Across the board, residents and constituents tell me that there is no transparency regarding the accounts, and we know that they cannot easily or fairly challenge increases in court. The Government have been consulting on the implementation of section 56 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, and on provisions around service charge transparency—measures that many of my constituents need implemented swiftly. However, there must also be regulation of managing agents. I cannot simply accept the massive discrepancies in costs, the service charge increases, and the lack of communication and basic decency. In Poplar and Limehouse, many leasehold builds are huge. They are incredibly tall—over 20 floors high, in many cases—and that would make it very difficult for leaseholders to take over and run their building under the right to manage, which is a system that desperately needs simplification. Some changes are being brought forward in the leasehold Bill, but thousands in my constituency will continue to suffer runaway service charges and from rogue managing agents. In the absence of the abolition of leasehold, it is only right that the Government accept the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Lord Best, and introduce an independent regulator for managing agents through the leasehold reform Bill. I urge the Government to do that.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Domestic Abuse and Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  To make politics truly responsive to the needs of survivors of domestic abuse, and to address the failures that have let them down time and again, the voices of survivors need to be heard and understood in the place where our country’s laws are made. The Minister, as a survivor of domestic abuse and violence, is testament to the fact that the voices of those with lived experience are desperately needed in this place, yet the barriers can feel enormous. The cost of entering and staying in politics can mean that survivors are locked out, or pushed out, of political participation. Given the stigma, the structural and systemic bias against us, the endless complaints and investigative processes, and the use of the courts and the law to threaten and silence us, what a survivor has to endure feels insurmountable. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has said that democratic institutions that tolerate the exclusion of women cannot credibly claim to represent them. Indeed, I know that survivors who are already in public life have chosen not to come forward and report the abuse that they have faced, because of their perpetrator’s position of power. That is important, because politics is about power. Politics and abuse can often be closely correlated, as we have seen through the revelations of Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific crimes and his connections to British political figures and institutions. The abuse does not end when a survivor leaves; often, it intensifies, as I know too well. The threats, intimidation, monitoring and manipulation can continue in social settings, such as sports clubs; online and offline; and, yes, in workplaces, political party settings and all across public life. In my experience, and in the experience of survivors I have spoken to, post-separation harassment is shockingly pervasive. I want to illustrate that through the story of a councillor who informed me that she endured a truly staggering level of post-separation harassment from an ex-partner, his family and his associates during the local elections. Hundreds of abusive messages were shared on public forums during the campaign, including personal and private information, putting her at risk. Although I will not be able to relate the full extent of the police failings in her case, it is shocking that no protections have yet been put in place to allow her to conduct her public duties safely, despite the introduction of Operation Ford. How is she supposed to attend full council meetings, when her ex-partner may turn up there? What about her prospects of being able to safely participate in future elections? Tragically, she says, “I’m just at the point now where I don’t think I want to stand again”. This situation is all too familiar to me, but why should we be the ones to leave? As I have explained to the House previously, when I first put myself forward to be Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Poplar and Limehouse, the harassment I faced intensified. My ex-husband told people he was angry that I had not asked his permission to stand, and he threatened to “expose” me to the community, knowing that he had intimate details about my medical history, and pictures of me without my hijab on. Threats were made to campaign team members, who were told to tell the press stories about me. They were told that people should “make me stand down or else”. At the time, my ex-husband was a Labour councillor. Then and, I understand, even now, he was well connected in local political groupings and with a small clique within my local Labour party. Two years after my election in 2019, I was made to endure a vexatious eight-day trial on criminal charges as a result of a complaint made by my ex-husband’s brother-in-law. I was completely cleared, but I feel that that continues to haunt me, and perhaps will for the rest of my life. Why? Because even after my ex-husband was expelled from the Labour party for his treatment of me, he stood against me in the general election in 2024, with the stated aim of wishing to “set the record straight”. Indeed, I found out through a press outlet less than 20 minutes before the deadline for legal nominations that he was standing. I had just 20 minutes to decide whether I should embark on my re-election campaign, with the prospect of continuing to be in public life while knowing that the harassment had now rolled on from party and court processes to an electoral one. I want to highlight to the House just what that meant in practice. I was unable to attend some hustings, and had to seek advice as to whether refusing to stand next to my ex-husband at the election count would violate his legal rights as a candidate. I had to leave polling stations immediately when he was tipped off about where I was. I had to stop campaigning early on election day, because the threat just could not be managed. There appears to be little or no framework on how to manage the situation overall, because he was already confirmed as a parliamentary candidate, or even about how to protect my democratic rights and provide me with safety as a candidate. I feel a tremendous duty to survivors, and am compelled to keep speaking out about these experiences and to do something about this, because what happened to me must never happen to anyone again. I have long been campaigning for better protections in the workplace for survivors of domestic abuse, and I have also been campaigning, cross-party, for new duties to be placed on all political parties to better support candidates and representatives who are survivors of domestic abuse, so that they are not exposed to further harassment in their roles. Abuse is not always direct; survivors can experience threats made against third parties, who can be intimidated or manipulated into engaging in behaviours desired by the perpetrator. These are forms of indirect abuse, as I have come to understand through the ongoing support of my independent domestic violence advocate. I know from my experiences of my ex-husband’s associates, including the small clique still active in the local party, that the abuse can persist even when the perpetrator is not present. With reports that my party is about to commence a new re-selection process, I have still not been told if or how the party will prevent those people from overseeing another process. In the years since the tragic and senseless murder of Jo Cox, which took place 10 years ago this month, numerous initiatives have been launched to tackle abuse and violence against representatives, campaigners and candidates. We know that women, and black and minority ethnic women most of all, face staggering levels of abuse, online and offline, ranging from threats of sexual violence to physical assaults. It is still a terrifying time to run for election as a woman, and 69% of women polled cite abuse or harassment as a key reason for not pursuing a career in politics. For a survivor, it is of course even more difficult to consider doing so. The return of the Representation of the People Bill to the House gives us the opportunity to tackle the barriers that lock survivors out of our political system. I am glad that clause 32 is increasing the timescale for anonymous voter registration; that is crucial to ensuring that survivors can participate in elections as voters, but what about participating as candidates? It is for that reason that I have tabled two amendments to the Bill to address the gaps in protections under electoral law regarding domestic abuse: the schedule 9 offences for which disqualification orders must include behaviours amounting to domestic abuse; and, when charging and conviction rates for domestic abuse related offences remain so low compared to the full scale of domestic abuse, it is also necessary for courts to issue disqualification orders when granting protection orders. The amendments are supported by Elect Her and the Jo Cox Foundation. I hope the Government will consider them fully to encourage more survivors to participate in our politics and in our elections. There is no question about the need to make sure that survivors can feel secure and confident in standing for election. There are urgent measures that political parties, the Government and the police must take to make that possible. I am sure that, to the fullest possible extent, the Minister will be looking to deliver on the promises of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy. The measure of the strategy’s success will be whether it tackles the horrifying statistic that only one in five victims and survivors reports their abuse. How we enable victims and survivors to come forward is by tackling the systems that can be used to manipulate and silence them and prevent their voices from being heard. Political parties, including our own, must truly assess how well they themselves do that internally. We have a duty to make inclusive, democratic and safe environments that make it possible for everyone to participate. It saddens me deeply to be in a position where I am prevented from being able to participate fully in public life. I still have to risk assess every event and meeting, and I cannot participate if the risks cannot be mitigated. I have spoken from my own experience today, but I know that my experience is actually far from unique. I have been contacted by women and survivors from all across the country for whom I am determined to work for a society where survivors feel confident that they will be believed, listened to and treated supportively. This country must become one where survivors are not thwarted by ongoing harassment and abuse, including if they choose to enter public life, as surely should be their right.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Human Rights: Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this important debate, which has implications for human rights everywhere—whether here at home or in Malaysia, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo or elsewhere. I will focus my remarks first on Bangladesh. In May, the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh, which I chair, held a meeting on workers’ rights and labour conditions in Bangladesh following the 13th anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse; we were joined by the Rana Plaza Solidarity Collective, the International Centre for Trade Union Rights and human rights lawyers. On 24 April 2013, 1,134 garment workers lost their lives in what trade unions at the time described as a “mass industrial homicide”. The incident exposed the brutality of the global production system, in which labour rights are constantly under attack. I want to be clear: those Bangladeshi lives would not have been taken if workers’ rights, which are human rights, were respected in global supply chains. Before the Rana Plaza collapse, workers’ safety concerns were unheard by managers and their attempts to organise unions to address their unsafe working conditions were suppressed. A global outrage followed the collapse of Rana Plaza, and it is true that there have been welcome advances in workers’ rights in Bangladesh since then, but the truth is that the gains have been slow and partial, and unevenly distributed across industries. That is in part due to a failure to implement universal mandatory responsibilities for human rights and labour rights. Instead, we have seen the spread of voluntary mechanisms for safeguarding rights. Brands in the global north that want to avoid reputational risk are the ones that implement safeguards themselves. Many garment industry workers supplying the likes of Zara or Walmart do benefit from some of the measures introduced on labour rights, but that is not universal. For those in sectors less exposed to reputational damage, it is a different story. For example, in Chittagong’s deadly shipbreaking industry, workers, including child labourers, still face highly dangerous conditions without safety equipment or compensation on death. Shipping being what it is, that affects nearly every supply chain in the world. We cannot pretend that Bangladesh’s garment or exporting factories are now all safe. As Labour Behind the Label has pointed out, fires at two separate factories last autumn, in which 17 people were killed, have shown the glaring gaps in protections between firms that have adopted the international accord and those that have not. In the years since Rana Plaza, Bangladesh has seen another 7,160 deaths in the workplace—a figure that is likely a gross undercount. That figure alone should tell us that we have long moved past the point where voluntary corporate responsibilities alone can be considered sufficient. As we explored in the APPG on Bangladesh, in response to the Rana Plaza collapse France introduced its duty of vigilance law, requiring companies to establish, publish and effectively implement measures to prevent severe abuses of human rights in their supply chains. We have also seen the EU move to bring in a due diligence directive; Members have already pointed out how that has been watered down. None the less, I think its existence has created a legal pathway, absent in the UK, to provide victims of corporate abuse with a path to actually seek justice. As I have mentioned, in the UK we still rely mostly on voluntary measures that offer little protection to billions of workers globally who work for unscrupulous employers or sectors. In that context, market forces will continue to drive down labour rights in a race to the bottom that rewards bad business practices and exploits or even kills workers. As civil society organisations, including those here today, have pointed out, mandatory due diligence laws are already in force in many European nations and are being advanced in Asia. If the UK fails to keep pace, we risk becoming a dumping ground for tainted goods, with our market enabling abhorrent rights violations. In the same vein, it cannot be said that it is anywhere near sufficient for the Government to offer new business risk guidance to firms undertaking business with settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That does not meet the demands of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the occupation, and offers tacit permission, dressed in strong wording, for firms to continue to do business with illegal settlements. That settlement trade serves to entrench the settlements’ unlawful presence, while the importing of goods and produce justifies their continued expansion. I want to be clear that that expansion is a violent process of ethnic cleansing undertaken by means of horrific settler attacks, hand in hand with a military occupation that stifles Palestinian people’s livelihoods and demolishes their homes. UK trade policy enables those rights abuses. I note the words of ActionAid, which states that the business guidance “is effectively outsourcing the UK’s compliance with international law to private actors.” All this shows how all-encompassing the issue of human rights in supply chains is. There is no doubt that if the UK Government are serious about protecting people’s human rights, including labour rights, in supply chains, strong legislation must be brought in. I note that at present a model is being advanced in the other place. I hope that all Members will support the calls from trade unions, lawyers and civil society organisations in the Corporate Justice Coalition to bring forward a new business, human rights and environmental Bill. To be meaningful, protections for human rights, including workers’ rights, must be enshrined in law. We can say that we take human rights seriously only when we take seriously accountability for the abuses committed to bring goods to our markets. That is important because every worker deserves dignity and equality, and upholding those rights is a collective responsibility. We fail in those duties if the rights that we enjoy are denied to those in other parts of the world.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the moving and impassioned speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her deeply moving tribute and the contribution she made today, speaking about her dear sister. I also pay tribute to the work of the rest of Jo’s family, who, in the decade since her senseless and terrible murder, have been champions for celebrating her life, her legacy and her values. Jo’s principled internationalism and her humanitarian legacy are and should be a source of great pride to her loved ones. It was the singular sense of humanity and compassion that she brought to her causes which drove them forward. From refugee rights to the protection of civilians in war, her contributions were remarkable. Jo’s work in Syria rightfully won many admirers in many countries, and we should also remember her outspoken and impassioned advocacy for the rights of the Palestinian people. After working in Gaza and the west bank with Oxfam, Jo spoke passionately in Parliament about the need for the Government to do more for humanitarian aid in Gaza, as well as for civilian protection during the 2014 Gaza war. I know that her voice has been sorely missed in this place over recent years. I must also place on record my admiration for the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. As Members have said, the efforts of the foundation are carrying forward Jo’s mission on tackling loneliness and social isolation. The scale of loneliness in this country is a tragedy in and of itself, but the impact of this isolation on an individual’s health and wellbeing and on the fabric of our social wellbeing demands real action. The foundation’s efforts deserve recognition, and I support the campaign for a new cross-Government action plan to tackle loneliness, while noting my admiration for organisations in my constituency, including Neighbours in Poplar, for their work in bringing our communities together. Two years ago, I participated in research undertaken by the Jo Cox Foundation for its 2024 Civility Commission report, “No place in politics: tackling abuse and intimidation”. As I stated to those at the foundation then, I have long faced a heightened risk to my own safety: serious death threats, threats to kidnap me, threats of sexual violence and threats about ripping off my hijab in public. This abuse has not relented in the years since I was first elected to this House, and I am sad to say that, despite progress being made on the representation of women in this House, I do not feel there has been sufficient progress in our country to protect elected representatives or those who are standing for election. Despite all the initiatives on security and justice in the years since Jo’s death, politics in this country remains a dangerous and difficult environment for women. We know that elected representatives and candidates from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly targeted for abuse. I say this knowing that Jo was absolutely passionate about achieving a 50:50 Parliament, and she was a passionate advocate for women standing for public office not only in the UK but in many different countries around the world. The constant abuse and threats of violence against women representatives and candidates represent a major obstacle that is holding us back in the UK, and we must do more. Young people, women and survivors of domestic abuse often reach out to me and other Members of this House to say that they would like to stand for office, to take forward their lived experiences into politics, and they ask us for advice. I have to be completely frank that I now often struggle to give them that encouragement, because after many years of trying to rebuild and move on with my life, I am really aware of the physical and mental health toll on me as the post-separation harassment goes on and on.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the area that many of us are looking at in the Representation of the People Bill before the House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. She has publicly said that my experiences were completely unacceptable and unjustified, and that we must all do better to ensure that no one who seeks to stand for public office or to represent their communities has to face what I have had to face. She and I both work with many organisations and activists across the tackling violence against women and girls sector. That entire movement was built on the backs of survivors who decided to do something for themselves and for others, and who became activists. Why should those people not be able to stand for office? Why should they not be policymakers? Surely that is almost a natural progression. Why should they look at situations such as mine and think to themselves, “No, I can’t do that; I can’t take it too far” because the perpetrator will target them? It must be the duty of everyone in society, and of all political parties, to ensure that elected representatives who are survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment in their roles. I wish to thank members of the Jo Cox Foundation, including Dr Hannah Phillips, who I have worked with, as well as Elect Her and other organisations, for their encouragement. I also thank many of my constituents who have stood and continue to stand with me throughout what I continue to endure. I am also grateful for the support of my independent domestic violence advocate, without whom I do not think I would have been able to go through many of the procedures and processes that I continue to endure, just to be heard and to ensure that the right protections are in place. I was elected to this place three years after Jo’s tragic murder, but the impact that she had on those who had the privilege to know her is clear. I know how proud many of my constituents are to have called Jo a neighbour in Poplar and Limehouse, and once again I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and say how I touched I have been by her words. I hope we can try to change politics for the better, build a society with dignity at its heart, and improve safety for women and survivors of domestic abuse.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we must take steps both online and offline with the same level of energy and commitment, and I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. When Members first come to Parliament or enter politics, they know that they are ultimately taking a risk with their life, and that is not something we should have to do when we put ourselves forward for office. It is not easy for me to say that I have also contended with that scenario—perhaps I have to understand that it just comes with the job. There have been times when I have legitimately feared for my life, and that was particularly true during the last general election campaign. As I have previously informed the House, during that election the abuse and intimidation that I had long endured reached new heights. It was an election in which my abusive ex-husband stood as a candidate against me, after I had already faced several years of post-separation harassment. Even before that I had already endured a vexatious trial, and a reselection process in the Labour party, during which I experienced harassment from his associates. Alarm bells were rung by organisations in the domestic abuse sector, and representations were made on my behalf, but the situation is ongoing and unresolved. All of that has been a deeply harrowing experience that I truly do not believe any survivor of domestic abuse should be expected to endure. I also feel a strong sense of duty and responsibility to other survivors of domestic abuse in this country, and over the years they have reached out to me, saying that they feel a strength when they see people in this House speak about their own experiences. I do not want to be a case study or a statistic sometime in the future, or for us to say that nothing could really happen in this situation, yet sometime down the line, one or two decades later, we will all look back and say, “Oh yeah—she was really failed. The system did not protect her as a survivor of domestic abuse. We are better now, but there were failings along the way.” For that reason, along with Members across the House, I am working to try to secure better protection for candidates facing domestic violence, post-separation harassment, and hostility in the context of election campaigns. That is why I have provided testimony and participated in the work of the all-party group on women in Parliament, and given evidence to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is developing a method for institutional action—MINA—to protect candidates standing in elections or those in elected office who suffer violence in politics. Domestic abuse can affect people from all walks of life and in all forms of employment, including those of us serving in public office. All survivors should be able to have dreams and hopes, a life beyond domestic abuse, and play a role in national policy making and our democracy, just like anybody else who has not gone through those awful and horrific experiences. This is not just about me. As I have said, no survivor of domestic abuse should be prevented from standing or staying in office due to post-separation harassment.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—we can only be a rich and effective democracy with all voices in the debate. In this House, through the increased representation of women, we have been able to enact and make progress on policies that meet the needs of a wide range of people in our country. It is important for us to be able to change politics for the better, to improve safety for women and survivors of domestic abuse, and increase their ability to participate in politics. I hope I may be able to play some part in that work, and I will continue to do so to honour Jo’s legacy and values.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  A prohibition must be brought in to finally deal with British firms such as JCB, which for decades has been involved in settlement construction and the demolition of Palestinian homes. The Secretary of State has not confirmed why a full ban on settlement goods has not been brought in. When she says that the practicalities are too complex, the British public see only a Government dragging their heels. Will she clarify what those practicalities are? Once again, why is it possible to have a full ban for occupied Crimea but not for the occupied west bank?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lebanon: Israel Defence Forces Operations · Hansard source

  More

  For years, it has been reported that Israel has been using white phosphorus munitions against civilian targets in south Lebanon’s Bekaa valley. Alongside reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon has even reported that UN peacekeepers in Lebanon were injured by white phosphorus munitions. The Minister has confirmed to me previously that the Government are aware of these reports, and they know that the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon in populated areas is strictly prohibited, yet this is just one of thousands of examples of Israel tearing up the laws of war. Can the Minister explain whether the UK’s joint agreement, signed in 2020, on military co-operation with Israel is still in place, and if so, why?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  Given that Morgan McSweeney’s name has been copied into so many messages, these disclosures show the need for us to return to the role of Labour Together. Can the Minister tell us whether any third-party redactions relate to any figures associated with Labour Together and, now that its former director has left his seat in this place, will he also tell us when we can expect a full and independent investigation of its activities?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  In 2024, the British people, including so many of my constituents, voted for change. After a decade of brutal austerity, they desperately needed a drastic and material improvement in their living standards. The last King’s Speech championed measures that have the potential to radically change the situation for people, from renters’ rights to employment rights and more. I am pleased that this King’s Speech brings forward the Government’s commitments to end conversion practices and to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. Yet we are not seeing the transformative agenda that the country has been crying out for and that people who have always supported Labour want. We have seen policy U-turns, from winter fuel allowance to the lifting of the two-child limit, following significant political and public pressure. We have seen policies that the British public rejected just last week, such as the changes to indefinite leave to remain and, of course, the continued failure to take meaningful action against the genocide in Gaza. We have also seen the targeting of refugees and migrants, and the provisions of the immigration and asylum Bill are incredibly alarming. The direction of travel in policy means that the Government are now left facing existential questions about what the Labour party stands for, who it stands for and why. The Government said in response to their losses last week that there needs to be a faster and quicker shift, but in the same direction. I want to be clear that this is not what my constituents want. My constituents and I refuse to accept that poverty and inequality have to be a normal part of our society and that nothing can be done about it. That is not why I came into politics. It is true that the stark disregard for human suffering displayed by the Conservative Government will never, ever be forgotten. They drove people into poverty then punished them for being poor. They pursued the vulnerable and persecuted the disabled. That is why people have been desperate for real change. It is also true, however, that the United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world and London is the fifth wealthiest city in the world. The richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70% of the population, and the UK’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than 50% of our population. In that context, people simply do not believe that they must continue to endure more hardship for any longer. I have said before that everything has to be costed and nothing is free in the purest sense, but the fact is that we are a relatively wealthy country and the resources are there in some form. They could be raised, for example, by ensuring that big business and the wealthy pay their fair share. If the wealthiest 1% in this country were taxed just a modest 1% more, it would raise £25 billion and leave more after. It is a question of priorities, political choices and in whose interests decisions are made. I find myself asking again and again, “If there is not enough money, what is the plan to make sure that there is?” Why does austerity still have to be the political choice? That is why I call for the overall benefit cap to be lifted in full; the lifting of the two-child limit alone still leaves thousands of families excluded and trapped in poverty. I appeal to the Government to ensure that there are no further attacks on the rights of disabled people in the UK. The Timms review is due to report in autumn, and I am obliged to make it clear for my constituents, many of whom are already impacted by cuts to the health component of universal credit, that any further attempts to restrict or cut personal independence payments would be disastrous and have to be dropped. If they are not dropped, at bare minimum there must be a full parliamentary vote. Surely the greatest duty of any Government must be to protect and empower the most vulnerable people in our society and deliver social good, not social harm. I am clear about what my role must be, who elected me, and who I am here to represent, and I cannot in my conscience allow the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled to be exposed to any further brutality. If there is no money for disabled people not to be further punished through the welfare system, then the money must be found. If the way our economy is run means that large scale human suffering and wasted potential is unavoidable, it is up to the Government to change the way the economy is run. The King’s Speech proposed a step forward towards the nationalisation of British Steel. I welcome that intention, just as I welcomed the first steps towards the nationalisation of railways in the last Session. However, it presents nationalisation almost as a move of last resort, after private interests have extracted all the profits they can from privatised industries. Why can we not have a conversation about nationalisation in the public good? When we are seeing the dire, shameful way that the private water industry is being mismanaged, a new water ombudsman in the clean water Bill is not enough to meet the scale of the problem. If they have the political will, the Government can meet the public support and demand for public ownership for mail, rail, water and gas, and end the disastrous experiments with privatisation. I reaffirm my commitment to a publicly owned and run NHS that provides free and funded healthcare for all. That principle was an ironclad manifesto commitment, yet we have seen a return to private finance initiatives in the NHS—the same initiatives that have had disastrous consequences in constituencies such as mine in east London. Doctors themselves are resisting controversial Government decisions to sign partnerships with Palantir, and along with that, the agreement last year to appease Donald Trump will strip away National Institute for Health and Care Excellence medicine price controls, and lock in higher drug prices, doubling NHS spend on new medicines, and diverting funds from other vital NHS functions. That will only serve to benefit American big pharma. Private interests should never line their pockets at the expense of our society’s health, not least under a Labour Government. The economy must also work to resolve the housing crisis. I have been looking closely at the social housing Bill, and I welcome its provisions and measures to protect tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse—something the sector has long been campaigning for. However, we will be looking at such measures closely because they need to work in practice, and I remain concerned about the Bill more widely. Can it truly provide the solutions needed to solve the housing crisis without ensuring a commitment to a mass social housing building programme and rent controls? My east London constituency has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the entire country. We have people living in uninhabitable and overcrowded homes that are also not affordable. That is set against a backdrop of rising wealth in the financial sector and the encroaching City of London in the west, and the ever-expanding Canary Wharf real estate. It is why many of my constituents are concerned about what the legacy and future of the Billingsgate market site in my constituency could be. Could it provide genuinely affordable homes, or could it lead to more luxury flats being built that will drive local people, including families, out of our area? Likewise, many of my constituents who are struggling in the cost of living crisis are interested to know what the Government’s discussions with the financial giant J.P. Morgan will end up meaning for our area and whether decisions are being driven in the interests of local people and for the longevity of our area. The Prime Minister claimed yesterday that the King’s Speech “will tear down the status quo”. —[ Official Report , 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 22.] The risk here is that disillusionment has begun to settle in. I believe there needs to be less talk of delivery and missions and more talk about how the Government will truly rebalance power and address inequality in the interests of workers and working-class people in this country. The Government must be louder and bolder, but in a vastly different political direction. That must mean showing up as a Government who take people’s material concerns seriously and addressing those concerns in line with the Labour values that they were founded on. More incrementalism sends a message to the British people that the Government do not understand what has gone wrong, because this country and its economy are not working for millions of people, and that demands transformative action.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  In December 2024, the Prime Minister said in announcing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador that he had “unrivalled experience”. That was despite the gravity of what was known about Peter Mandelson’s record and available publicly. Is it not the case that Peter Mandelson’s political appointment, which was personally decided by the Prime Minister and announced in public before the security vetting was completed, needed to progress and had to happen—however it happened—because of Mandelson’s role in the Prime Minister’s own leadership campaign and because it served the interests of one particular faction in the Labour party?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right to protest is a basic democratic freedom that was won over centuries of British history. It is not a right that was granted, but one that was hard-won by suffragettes, trade unionists, anti-fascists and many others. Today we are focusing only on the Lords amendments, but I place on record that this Bill is a serious and substantial assault on our democratic freedoms. Indeed, before the Bill was introduced to this House, the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Public Order Act 2023, and many other anti-protest Bills passed under the last Government had already expanded police powers. Those Bills were widely criticised by legal experts and civil society organisations and faced widespread opposition from Members from across the House. This makes the shambolic process by which these proposals have been brought before the House even more disturbing. The Bill proposes giving the police even more powers, including to decide where, when, and even whether a protest takes place. At this very late stage, the other place has now proposed amendment 312, which could lead to protests being not just restricted, but banned outright. That should alarm anyone who cares about democracy, because it should not need pointing out that the whole point of protests is that they are supposed to have a cumulative impact. Should the suffragettes or the Chartists have given up after just one attempt? The UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has recently outlined how far out of step this extraordinary expansion of state power is with international norms. This Bill and Lords amendment 312 exist in the context of one of the largest and most sustained protest movements in modern British political history. The Home Secretary has not obscured the fact that these proposals are a direct response to the demonstrations for Palestine. Indeed, I have been proud to protest alongside hundreds and thousands of constituents in over 30 major national demonstrations demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza—collective actions to stand up for humanity in the face of the gravest acts of inhumanity. In this context, it is absurd that under these proposals, holding repeated protests could justify far-reaching restrictions and even outright bans. Where does this lead? Trade unions are asking whether picketing during an industrial dispute would make them vulnerable to heavy-handed interventions. I understand that the Government are supporting Lords amendment 312; I oppose it entirely, and will instead be supporting a motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) to disagree with amendment 312. This assault on the right to protest could lead us down an extremely worrying path, where Governments can become totalitarian and are able to silence whomever they choose. British democracy has been defined by dissent, and social progression has been achieved by diverse groups mobilising for women’s rights, for LGBTQ+ equality, for workers’ rights, and for solidarity across those causes. I reiterate my opposition to clauses 156 and 158, which deal with wearing or using items to conceal identity at protests. There has not been a fundamental assessment or full clarity about how making “wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals” a person’s “identity or another person’s identity” an offence, as the Bill states, will work in practice. For example, how will it work for Muslim women who observe hijab or niqab? I understand that a defence has been worked in for those concealing their identity at protests for religious purposes, but it is a defence in law, to be proven only after an arrest and during onerous court proceedings. These clauses will only extend the ways in which black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals are over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system. If we believe in democratic values, we must defend the space for protest—loudly and with determination—against attempts to shrink it further. At a time when public trust in political institutions is already incredibly fragile, the Government’s decision to weaken one of the few tools people have to hold power to account is, in my view, irresponsible. This Bill draws another line in the sand between those who benefit from the political establishment and those who wish to challenge it. I am with the protesters, who have my solidarity, because I know which side of history I want to be on.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I note what the Minister has just said—she said the same to our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—that she derives the assessment of cumulative disruption from the Public Order Act 1986, in that the police must, rather than can, consider cumulative disruption. However, the definition of “cumulative” does not exist in the law as it stands; indeed, the bulk of the text of amendment 312 creates a definition of “cumulative disruption”. Will the Minister clarify where else in the law does that definition already exist, because it is not in the Public Order Act?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Because it is Lords amendments, I want to get full clarity on the definition of cumulative. She mentioned the natural definition of cumulative. If I may borrow the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who actually was interviewed under caution for laying flowers for dead children just over a year ago, would it be seen as unnatural or natural if he were to lay down in front of Heathrow runway? What would happen? Is it the expectation that the police would determine what is cumulative, as the Minister said it would be the natural definition?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The House has repeatedly been told that the Government have permitted the US to use British military bases for defensive purposes only, but amid the widespread US targeting of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including schools, hospitals and bridges, we have not been told how those restrictions work in practice. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether US military aircraft have taken off from RAF Fairford or Lakenheath carrying heavy munition payloads? If they have, is there any US operational policy for action from our bases in place that has been approved by this Government? If not, is it the case that the working definition of defensive action is simply, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Under international law, the use of force is permitted for “individual or collective self-defence” against “an armed attack”. Such use of force must satisfy the requirements of proportionality and necessity. In light of the broadening use of British military bases at the request of Donald Trump over the past week, will the Defence Secretary clarify for the British public how this satisfies those requirements? If the lessons of Iraq are to be learned, surely he must understand that the British public will not accept anything other than a parliamentary debate and vote on any further British military involvement.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  We have a profound duty to those who elect us regarding the scrutiny of legislation. This week, the other place has been debating the Crime and Policing Bill, which is wide in scope and raises several concerns of the utmost importance to our constituents. Will the Leader of the House clarify how long Members will have to properly debate and vote on Lords amendments on a new category of extreme criminal protest groups, as well as Government new clauses on so-called cumulative disruption and face coverings, which have profound equalities implications? Will he assure us that timetabling pressures before the end of this parliamentary Session will not prevent proper scrutiny and consideration of this serious and substantive Bill?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  On danger and protections, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must maintain the existing protections for survivors of domestic violence who have fled persecution and violence abroad, including the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession and the domestic violence ILR protection?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need urgently—today—to provide clarity on those constituents, perhaps of his and certainly of mine, who came through the European Community association agreement route and have had applications for renewals and other elements paused since November 2025? They are now in complete limbo, although they are eligible as of this month to apply for indefinite leave to remain.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Is he concerned, like me, about what the reforms will mean for the survivors of abuse who have fled persecution abroad? Does he agree that perpetrators already weaponise immigration status against their victims, and that removing refugee protection will lead only to survivors having even less access to support and being too scared of deportation to leave?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Aside from the response to the Humble Address, 90 Members from parties across the House are calling for an independent statutory inquiry into the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and British public figures and institutions, including whether due diligence was undertaken in the case of any appointments to public roles. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position to support such calls and establish an inquiry? If not, can he confirm that there is no influence from Labour Together on such a position?

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I will do my very best, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate Members on their contributions to the debate so far. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) on a very impassioned first speech about the rich traditions in her constituency of standing in unity and for humanity against attempts to divide. It has been six years since I delivered my first speech in Parliament during a similar debate on International Women’s Day, in which I paid tribute to our local history of women’s struggles for social justice, which continue to be daily sources of inspiration. Today’s debate comes as the cost of living crisis continues to foster a sense of injustice, uncertainty and anxiety across the UK, set against a brutal backdrop of more than a decade of Conservative austerity and chronic under-investment in public services, which were left hollowed out and, in many instances, privatised by the last Government. The cost of living crisis has meant that women are more likely than men to lose their jobs or reduce their paid work, given that they are more frequently employed in sectors that have been directly disrupted by austerity measures and impacted by cuts and under-investment in public services. Women, particularly black, Asian and minority ethnic women, continue to account for around two thirds of low earners, and they are more likely to be working on zero-hours contracts or part-time contracts. Ahead of the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia this weekend, I am all too aware of how Muslim women are among the most economically disadvantaged faith groups in the UK, impacted by the prevalence of negative stereotypes, harassment and hate crimes. The increased overlap of working and caring responsibilities has added to the ongoing reality that caring continues to be a major factor in women’s ability to participate on equal terms. Put simply, women still face structural economic inequality throughout their lives, which intersects with other structures of inequality, including race and disability. We also know that violence against women, including trans women, continues to blight our society. I know personally that the impact of domestic abuse on the physical and mental health of survivors can be devastating. Four years ago, I faced a reselection process in which numerous complaints were made about rule-breaking and misogynistic intimidation, a process marred by the involvement of my ex-husband and his associates. As many Members will be aware, I was subsequently signed off sick from work. Although activists and organisations in the domestic abuse sector expressed alarm at my treatment, and my independent domestic violence advocate made representations on my behalf, the matter remains unresolved. The post-separation harassment and the institutional gaslighting and silencing goes on and on. What I am reminded of by my lived experience is that domestic abuse can impact people from all walks of life and in all forms of employment, including those of us in public life. To this day, I still have women from across the country reaching out in support, and I continue to work with Members from across the House to call on all political parties to ensure that political representatives who are survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment in their roles. I also continue to call and campaign for better protections in the workplace more widely, from paid leave for domestic abuse to mandatory policies on domestic abuse in every workplace, to eliminate domestic abuse in our society, because that requires a whole-society approach. I am intrigued by today’s announcement of a new unit to look into intimidation experienced during elections, given that my ex-husband stood against me at the last general election with the stated aim of trying to “set the record straight”, after everything I had already endured. I will look at ways to contribute constructively to the Government’s work in this regard, because this is not just about me. No survivor of domestic abuse should be prevented from standing for office or staying in public life, having fled abuse or because they experience post-separation harassment. We need to ensure that this place sends the right message to our country. In the light of the Mandelson scandal, we need an independent statutory inquiry into all of Jeffrey Epstein’s links to British institutions and figures, which I—along with over 70 Members of this House—continue to call for. I also believe we need an independent investigation into the activities of Labour Together. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I am delighted to be working with Women’s Aid to ensure that no survivor is left behind. As we approach the fifth anniversary of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 next month, this could not be more important, because we in the VAWG sector know that the weaponisation of violence against women and girls by far-right groups and political parties such as Reform harms survivors and ultimately impedes the real work of tackling the root causes of society-wide violence, to the detriment of women and girls. It has resulted in women fleeing persecution abroad facing even more danger here, including being targeting at hotels over the past year. The Government have an ambitious commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and our APPG welcomes measures in the VAWG strategy to try to achieve that, including the overarching, cross-departmental approach and the focus on prevention. The Minister for Safeguarding has positively engaged with us in that regard, and is also delivering on other commitments. However, I am concerned about the Government’s wider programme of austerity; the real-terms cuts to benefits, including the retention of the overall benefit cap and the freezing of the local housing allowance; and the continued injustice of the WASPI women’s lack of compensation. I am also concerned about the ongoing assaults on civil liberties, which target those who are most at risk: minoritised and migrant women, including those from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I hope that, going forward, the Government can address the areas in which migrant and minoritised women need our support.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No one is denying that after 14 years of desecration by the Conservatives, the backlog in the Crown courts is out of control and stacked against victims, but curtailing jury trials is not necessary to tackle it. There is no evidence that these plans will fix the problems in our criminal justice system, and the Institute for Government has suggested that restricting juries could save less than 2% of court time. It is no wonder, then, that thousands of lawyers have written to the Government to oppose these plans. They do acknowledge, like many of us, that the Bill contains some good provisions, including the repeal of the presumption of child contact, which has been long campaigned for by many of us in this House and by organisations such as Women’s Aid and Right to Equality, and led by the incredible Claire Throssell, who joins us in the Special Gallery. The Bill will also make transcripts available from the magistrates court, which has been long campaigned for by Charlotte and the team at Open Justice for All, among others, and supported by many of us in this House. However, on the curtailment of jury trials, I have spoken with many rape victims who feel that their trauma is being instrumentalised to undermine and restrict a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy—all for cost-cutting purposes. Of course, they want reform of the criminal justice system, but they want it to be evidence-led. The value and importance of a jury system cannot be overstated. The House will be aware that I was cleared by a jury in 2021 after a vexatious trial driven by malicious intent. Originally, my case was set to be heard in a magistrates court. I am not saying that that would have led to a different outcome for sure, but for someone of my background—working class, Muslim, and a woman of Bangladeshi heritage—the risk of a miscarriage of justice would have been much higher, without a shadow of a doubt. Back in 2017, the now Justice Secretary said in his report: “Juries are a success story of our justice system. Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries—including all white juries—do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants…This positive story about the jury system is not matched by such a clear-cut story for magistrates’ verdicts… In particular, there were some worrying disparities for BAME women… Of those women tried at Magistrates’ Court, Black women, Asian women, Mixed ethnic women and Chinese/Other women were all more likely to be convicted than White women.” The Bill will entrench structural discrimination, and I believe that Justice Secretary knows it. Indeed, I am also alarmed by the proposals to introduce trial by judge for some financial and fraud cases. As the Criminal Bar Association has highlighted, over 78% of barristers have said that it is important for juries to be able to evaluate complex evidence and prevent overreach in financial and fraud cases. In my case, the jury considered evidence over eight days—that was necessary, in my view.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend highlights important and vital statistics that illustrate an issue in the legal system: it does not reflect the wider diversity of communities who experience and go through the criminal justice system. The majority of women in prison are survivors of violence against women and girls; nearly 70% of women in prison report having experienced domestic abuse. They are more likely to have been tried in a magistrates court for either-way offences that could have been considered by a jury. I am very worried that the proposals in the Bill will result in more victims being jailed. This really matters. Three-year prison terms are life-altering sentences, but under the Bill they could be handed out by a judge. The Government have no mandate for a decision of such magnitude—it was not in the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto. Instead of restricting jury trials, I urge them to invest in and properly fund our criminal justice system in order to address the issue of court backlogs. Everyone—every single one of us—should have equal rights in our legal and court systems. Jury trials are a fundamental legal safeguard against miscarriages of justice, and surely our society should be based on true fairness in the course of delivering justice.