Apsana Begum MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to lead this Adjournment debate. Let me say at the start that another colleague wants to speak, and I will take two very short interventions from Members I have had conversations with before the debate. Next month, on 4 October, thousands of people from east London will be marking the 90th anniversary of what is commonly known as the battle of Cable Street, when the Jewish community and allies stood together to march off Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts. The victory is held up today as a high water mark for so many causes, including anti-fascism, grassroots Jewish activism and cross-community solidarity. It echoes from 1936 to the present in so many ways. Antisemitism and hate crimes are again on the rise in Britain. Just last week, a man was charged after making a Nazi salute outside a synagogue. Of course, we must never forget the victims of the recent antisemitic attacks in north London—including the stabbings in Golders Green earlier this year—and the abhorrent Heaton Park terrorist attack a year ago, which took the lives of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. We are also seeing the return of far-right and racist agitators who seek, much like Mosely, to exploit the struggles of working-class people in this country and sow hatred, intolerance and division. In the UK, migrants and asylum seekers are a sharp target. The anti-migrant pogroms in Belfast were just one among many chilling incidents of racist violence in recent months.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is correct. The debate is about recognising those really courageous, brave efforts. He speaks of his family’s contribution, as his parents were at the battle of Cable Street; over the years, I have spoken to him about his parents’ stories. By the time that the human blockade was formed, tens of thousands of protesters had gathered at Gardiner’s corner at Aldgate, hugely outnumbering the 4,000 fascists and their 7,000-strong police protection. It is important to remember that younger anti-fascists—children as young as 12—acted as runners delivering messages and directing for reinforcements. Far too often overlooked is the role of women, who leafleted and organised workers in the run-up to the march and in their thousands defended barricades on the day. To clear a path for the fascists, the police brutalised protesters with truncheons and attempted to charge their horses through their path. Hundreds of Jews and anti-fascists engaging in self-defence were seriously injured or arrested, and later accused by the police of having instigated the violence. Police were unable to force their entry via Aldgate or Whitechapel after huge confrontations there and eventually closed in on Cable Street. They broke through the first barrier at Cable Street, but fierce resistance pushed them back. By late afternoon, Mosley was instructed to retreat westwards. The police withdrew, and that evening celebrations erupted across the east end of London. As the daughter of migrants who moved to east London, I feel it is all too important to consider how community solidarity and resistance continued in the aftermath. The BUF did not disappear overnight, but anti-fascists were able to build on the battle to form a confident and united mass movement in the east end of London. Leafleting and public campaigning took place to keep out Mosley’s fascists in local elections held five months later, while initiatives such as the Stepney Tenants Defence League were pivotal in uniting the Irish and Jewish communities that Mosley had attempted to divide. Jews stood with Irish Catholics, and vice versa, against evictions and exploitation by landlords. They made it clear that their struggle was a class struggle, and this cut away at the remaining support for the BUF’s antisemitic politics in east London. For me and for anti-racists across east London and far beyond, this is an enduring inspiration. Many of those present spoke movingly about the cross-community solidarity that they saw at Cable Street that day. They included people such as Charlie Goodman. Charlie was arrested at Cable Street and after three months in prison went on to fight for the republicans in Spain. He spoke of the “Orthodox Jews with long silk coats and soft felt hats and the sidepieces standing shoulder to shoulder with Irish Catholics, dockers and Somali seamen…they all felt there was a need to be out there to stand on that particular day.” In other words, they knew that an injury to one was an injury to all. This, too, is how subsequent generations of east-enders have united in the face of hostile racist threats. Indeed, in the decades after Cable Street, east London’s Bangladeshi community, especially its youth movements and socialist and trade unionist allies, mobilised in response to the racially motivated murder of a 25-year-old textile worker, Altab Ali, in 1978. A huge demonstration marched Altab Ali’s coffin to Downing Street to demand their rights, while Bangladeshis and anti-racists together organised night patrols to protect communities from neo-Nazi threats. In the 1990s, communities on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency came together to confront the British National party. Trade unionists, the Bangladeshi community and allies once again organised huge demonstrations and mobilised across communities to challenge the BNP’s support base. Ahead of the 75th anniversary of the battle of Cable Street, the English Defence League was marched off Whitechapel, and even more recently the United Kingdom Independence party failed in its attempt to drive a crusade towards mosques last October and in its provocations again in January this year. Generation after generation of east-enders have had to confront attempts to divide our neighbours, to target, attack and intimidate them and to spread fear in our communities. As the historian, educator and author David Rosenberg has often reminded us, the anti-fascists at the battle of Cable Street did not have a blueprint, but they left us one with their sheer courage. As difficult as this may be for some, we must also pay attention to the catastrophically poor decisions from the police and political establishment at the time. The shameful decisions of the then Home Secretary amounted to tacit consent for the fascist assault in east London. His mounted police cracked skulls and arrested scores of protesters, some of whom received custodial sentences with hard labour for defending themselves and their communities. Six fascists were arrested, compared with 79 anti-fascists. Others, including the then Labour leadership, urged members to stay away from Cable Street that day. However, rank and file members, trade unionists and grassroots socialists all saw the necessity of defeating the blackshirts and continued to organise and mobilise. The victory at Cable Street has been memorialised in the iconic Cable Street mural, a major piece of public art unveiled in 1983 on the wall of the former St George’s town hall. It depicts a chaotic scene of mass resistance and street battles, and is itself a grassroots piece of cultural resistance with its own fascinating history. I would like to know whether the Government will be working to protect that cultural heritage, particularly as it has, sadly, been vandalised numerous times. I know that, unlike in 1936, the Government have invested resources into building community cohesion and inter-faith activities in my borough of Tower Hamlets, and I am pleased that my local council, along with local voluntary organisations, have been awarded Common Ground resilience funds to build social connections across communities, complementing numerous initiatives from the Mayor of London. Next month, on 4 October, east London will be standing together. Trade unionists, Jews, Muslims, Bangladeshis, Somalis, socialists and many thousands more will be at Cable Street once again to mark the history, legacy and values of all those brave people who stood together 90 years ago to say, “No pasarán! They shall not pass!” Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to them and to the organising committee, including the Jewish Socialists’ Group, who have done so much to immortalise the legacy of Cable Street, and tell us how the Government will honour the legacy of Cable Street and the anti-fascists of the day as we confront the rising antisemitism, racism and division of today? As my friend Rabbi Herschel Gluck OBE said: “Cable Street isn’t just a place on the map. It’s a concept. It’s an idea. The message of Cable Street is that we must never let evil pass.”

• 14 Sept 2026 · Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that communities must work with one another to deal with the challenges of our time—particularly the rise of racism and fascism, which we see across the world. Far-right parties are winning elections across western Europe, so we must look seriously and carefully at our own history and how we overcame those challenges in the past. Fascism was not defeated in Britain in a single day, but no day contributed as much as 4 October 1936. I am pleased that the Minister, a fellow London MP, is here, along with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), in whose constituency Cable Street is now situated after the boundary changes in 2024. We are here to debate the 90th anniversary and understand how the battle came to be. By 1934, the British Union of Fascists was concentrating its efforts on building a menacing street movement in inner-city areas. In east London, the BUF had four large branches. Thousands of supporters were based in a diverse and economically struggling area, where the largest minorities were of Irish Catholic and east European Jewish heritage. About 100,000 Jews lived in east London, where shop signs were written in Yiddish and more than 100 synagogues and shtiebels were established. Fascists attempted to set Irish Catholic and Jewish communities against each other, accusing Jews of taking English jobs, smashing their market stalls and attacking and beating Jews returning from synagogue or from shopping. On 26 September 1936, Mosley announced his intention to march provocatively right through those Jewish neighbourhoods and hold rallies with his supporters, but within two days 100,000 signatures were collected by the Jewish People’s Council—a local grassroots campaign formed only that year—to petition the then Home Secretary for a ban on the march to “retain peaceable and amicable relations between all sections of East London’s population.” Local mayors and local MPs including one of my predecessors, the great Labour MP George Lansbury, handed in the petition, yet shockingly the then Home Secretary refused and instead decided to send 7,000 police officers to protect Mosley and the blackshirts. Just hours after the refusal was issued, the Jewish People’s Council began to distribute leaflets calling on citizens of London to make sure the fascist march would not take place. Far from being a spontaneous uprising, it took an extraordinary amount of effort to organise east London’s resistance. The Jewish People’s Council worked frantically to mobilise Jewish and non-Jewish communities locally, while Communist party, Independent Labour party and trade union branches all mobilised the area’s textile workers, dockers and railway workers.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s new restrictions on fire and rehire are due to come into effect from January next year, yet some organisations are rushing to make use of this unfair and abhorrent practice in the time that remains. They include East End Homes in my constituency, which is deploying this practice against its long-standing housing workers, who are members of Unison, to force through the acceptance of diminished pension terms. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is unacceptable, and that fire and rehire practices should have no place in our society?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, and as a survivor of domestic abuse with direct experience of how that issue relates to social housing, I hope that the Bill can truly ensure that it leaves no survivor behind. Indeed, survivors and survivor-led organisations that have been campaigning for decades welcome many provisions in the Bill, but they have also expressed concern that some of the proposed protections would apply to too small a proportion of survivors. With criminal justice outcomes for domestic abuse so poor, it is clear that civil outcomes should be considered as part of the mandatory grounds for eviction. I am glad to have heard today that the issuing of a protective order will be introduced to schedule 1. I also believe that we should consider enhancing these grounds to include victims and survivors of rape and other sexual offences, including where a perpetrator is not an intimate partner, for instance a flatmate. Will the Minister clarify how the Bill will incentivise or ensure that these powers are actually used by landlords, rather than leaving them as wholly discretionary? On joint tenancies, there are grounds to say that the proposals exclude many survivors who are not listed as tenants, disproportionately affecting younger survivors and survivors of familial abuse. Will the Minister clarify if the Government have considered or are considering expanding these protections by accepting established evidence of residency in place of named tenancy? Furthermore, when a perpetrator has been removed from a joint tenancy, an unsustainable financial burden might arise for a survivor holding sole custody. With the benefits system likely too slow to respond, Women’s Aid, Refuge and others have called for consideration to be given by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister’s own Department as to how to incorporate affordability assessments at the point of transfer. Provisions on alternative accommodation raise the issue of furniture poverty, which is faced by far too many survivors. There are calls from experts to introduce a statutory duty for social housing provided to survivors to come furnished, and I hope the Government will pick up on that. Although I have raised many different points for consideration, there should be no doubt that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls in a decade will require painstaking efforts across all Departments and the examination of all frameworks. On housing, there is still far more to be done, and that mean listening to the VAWG sector and to survivors when they point out shortfalls in these proposals. I hope that the Minister will listen to these concerns and offer to meet members of the APPG to discuss our concerns and the implementation of the measures.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the long-awaited announcement, but may I press him on the UK’s existing intelligence and security partnership with Israel? Given that experts have said that RAF spy planes over Gaza and Lebanon this year have provided visuals and intelligence to the Israeli military shortly before massive air strikes, can he confirm whether the UK Government are assessing the UK’s legal position regarding the 2020 UK-Israel military co-operation agreement? I have asked his Department many times and have not had an answer.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Dover and Portsmouth: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  We have seen pogroms in Belfast, riots in Southampton, and then, of course, the chilling incidents in Dover and Portsmouth over the weekend. What is difficult to contend with is that this appears to be becoming more frequent and normalised. We cannot normalise the activities of organised far-right gangs. Will the Minister condemn the racism that was at the core of the activities and actions that took place this weekend? What can she say to those who cover their face for religious, health or work reasons, and who will be feeling particularly vulnerable at this time, about the Government and police response?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley). Countless numbers of constituents have contacted me about Palantir Technologies, telling me their concerns about the company’s involvement with Israel’s military and Trump’s ICE. Over 35 Members from across the House have signed my early-day motion calling on the Government to activate the break clause in the NHS federated data platform contract. The objection is not just about Palantir’s ethics, but about its operations under that contract. I share the concerns of many, including the National Data Guardian, about whether data identifiable to individual patients may be accessible by Palantir. The potential success of the proposals on the single patient record and whether it manages to gain the confidence of the British public depends on the Government listening to these concerns, and making sure that issues around data access and limits, patient opt-outs and the data controller are resolved. I note that the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has tabled a number of other amendments related to data safety, which I support. I also wish to speak in support of amendment 10, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), on ICB financing. I am deeply concerned by the introduction of a duty under clause 48 for each of the constituent bodies of the ICB to achieve financial balance. In east London, we are currently fighting against massive, eight-figure cuts to the East London NHS foundation trust, where workers have been on strike amid cuts to jobs in much-needed mental health services, all of which are being justified by reference to new requirements for financial balance across the trust. Under the provisions of clause 48, matters will be made much worse and the ability to shift and adapt capacity across the system will be rendered impossible. One of the reasons that this is so regrettable, particularly in an area like east London, where the need for mental health services is acute and rising, is that cuts to these services will simply lead to greater costs arising elsewhere. For that reason, I also support amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire, to place ICB spending on mental health services on a statutory footing. I also support amendment 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because I am concerned, as others are, about provisions in the Bill for the reorganisation of ICBs. The changes are among many aspects of this Bill that regrettably point towards a revival of marketisation policies from prior decades—policies that have now been largely discredited. To tackle the biggest health challenges that we face, we require partnership working, joined-up decision making between the NHS, local authorities and expert voices—a dialogue between providers and commissioners. Removing the potential for this type of dialogue appears to be a significant misstep, particularly for integrated care. Turning ICBs into purchasers alone appears to be being done for the benefit of reinforcing a purchaser-provider split—a split that experts have said time and again does not work, and does not deliver improved performance and outcomes, or even value for money. While I am relieved that the Government are tabling their own amendment 60 to reverse the scrapping of local authority ICB membership, I remain in full support of amendment 45 in order to ensure that NHS trusts, and foundation trusts too, retain their voice in commissioning and public health decisions. To conclude, the fundamental problem in the Bill lies in its adherence to a logic of marketisation. It is deeply regrettable that the Government are returning to the harmful public-private partnership model for capital investment and a rehashing of the private finance initiative disaster, the negative effects of which are still being felt across my east London constituency.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clauses 58 and 59 in my name. For far too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been locked out of our politics, for reasons ranging from the risk to physical safety to the threat of further exposure to post-separation harassment, as well as the serious toll on mental and emotional wellbeing. I know this all too well from my own horrific election experiences, where my ex-husband stood against me. I know that my experiences are not unique, and there are others who have suffered. In fact, many people who are survivors of domestic abuse cannot make the decision to run and stand for office because of the associated risks. New clauses 58 and 59 would resolve all those issues by extending to survivors of domestic abuse the protections that are afforded to the victims of other offences by enhancing disqualification orders under the Elections Act 2022, so that domestic abuse offences are adequately covered. I am proud to say that so many leading women’s rights and violence against women and girls organisations, including Elect Her, the Jo Cox Foundation, Right to Equality, Women’s Aid, Southall Black Sisters and many more, have joined me in calling for the law to change, along with at least 40 Members from all parties across this House. I am very grateful for that support. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission wrote to me recently agreeing that these amendments would “help strengthen candidate protection and enforcement against perpetrators.” I am asking Members to support new clauses 58 and 59, and I am calling on the Government to adopt those changes. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement over the past few weeks on my amendments, and for meeting with me. In her closing remarks, I hope that she will confirm that the Government will consider updating schedule 9 of the Elections Act through secondary legislation, looking at protections for survivors of domestic abuse, including a greater number of relevant offences being included, so that survivors can confidently and safely stand in elections. Our democracy cannot be said to be representative if we tolerate the structural barriers that block out survivors. Every survivor of domestic abuse should have the same right as anyone else to stand for office.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I am relieved that, ahead of the summer recess, the Government have not brought back to the House their controversial proposals to curtail jury trials, which I opposed on Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. Also included in that Bill were crucial measures to repeal the presumption of child contact in family court cases, after years of campaigning by Women’s Aid, Claire Throssell and others. Some reports suggest that the jury trial proposals have now been shelved, but will the Solicitor General confirm that the Government will still deliver the commitment to abolish the presumption of contact, perhaps through alternative legal means?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Timms Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents, including those already suffering the devastating consequences of the cuts to the health component of universal credit, are following the work of the Timms review closely and with trepidation. Like me, they know that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, but is intended as a contribution to the extra costs of living with a disability, from food to fuel and transport. Will the Minister ensure that any proposals brought forward to the House are not driven by the desire for short-term cuts that motivated the last two proposals, and that the focus is instead on how people actually experience disability?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Iran Conflict: Ceasefire · Hansard source

  More

  We are still waiting to learn the full extent of British military involvement in this conflict. The Minister must confirm whether the UK’s authorisation for the US to use British airbases continued as the ceasefire has collapsed. With 170 US airstrikes on Iran over the past two days, is the UK undertaking case-by-case authorisation for each individual strike? Secondly, I have asked numerous times about the 2020 UK-Israel military co-operation agreement, and I have not received a straight answer. With credible evidence of crimes against humanity in Gaza, the Minister has not yet replied to my letter from over a month ago asking whether an international law review of that agreement has been conducted. Can the Minister outline when I can expect a response?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is Muslim Climate Action Week, and mosques, youth groups and community organisations are coming together to explore environmental action through the lens of Islam, in a campaign that has been led by the charity Islamic Relief since 2024. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to all those in Poplar and Limehouse and across our country who are taking part in workshops, river clean-ups, film screenings and much more that encourages and celebrates Muslims in connecting our faith with practical environmental action?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban · Hansard source

  More

  One year ago this month, Awdah Hathaleen, a resident of Umm al-Khair, who was a consultant on Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land” and who I and others in this House met during his visit to Parliament in 2024, was murdered by the settler Yinon Levi. Awdah is desperately missed by his community in the village of Umm al-Khair, who are under severe threat of settler attacks and from the Israeli miliary. Only this week, it has been reported that over 30 armed settlers under military protection rampaged through Umm al-Khair to attack Palestinians. I raise this case to point out how weak the UK’s west bank policy is in practice. Yinon Levi runs an earthworks and construction company that enables the construction of new illegal settlement outposts and uses its heavy machinery to destroy Palestinian infrastructure, including pipes and powerlines. Even though Levi is sanctioned, it is entirely legal for UK firms to do business with him and to sell his firm diggers or spare parts, concrete for new outposts or anything else. The limits of these sanctions are simply a travel ban and an asset freeze—weak. The point is that this designation means nothing in practice if trade sanctions are not brought in to stymie support for illegal settlements. As hon. Members have said, these “complexities” are not fit to hide behind. When we see the action quite rightly taken on Russia and we see that many countries have already made a commitment to banning settlement trade, complexity comes across as a lazy excuse. The UK is being left behind internationally on this front and the Government appear to be farcically weak to the public, their MPs, the Palestinian people and even the Israeli Government.