Apsana Begum MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. More than 40 Members of this House, led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), wrote to the Justice Secretary on Monday urgently requesting that he respond, intervene and meet the lawyers of the Palestine Action prisoners, who have been on hunger strike for over 45 days. Since then, one of the prisoners, 20-year-old Qesser Zuhrah, was not transferred to hospital until just a couple of hours ago, despite her urgent pleas for urgent medical treatment since yesterday afternoon. Prisoners have the right to humane conditions, to a fair trial and to medical treatment. Given that lives are at immediate risk and that points of order have been raised by Members of this House to no avail, could you kindly advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we may do to get an urgent response and intervention from the Justice Secretary before the House rises tomorrow for the Christmas recess?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to acknowledge that there have been delays, as the Minister has said, but it is also important that the next strategy is comprehensive and has multi-departmental and cross-departmental working embedded within it. Will the Minister, who was formerly an active member of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, of which I am the chair, meet jointly with us and the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse in the first week back from recess, so that we can discuss the strategy in detail and how it can be successfully implemented?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  The Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, established in 1843, has a long history of serving those in need, both on land and at sea, including through its accommodation centre in my constituency, which is a safe haven for many hundreds of active and retired seafarers, including from the Somali community, who are in need of a home. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Alexander Campbell, who is in the Public Gallery and who leads a fantastic team? Does she agree that although charities are central to meeting the statutory obligations to seafarers, they are underfunded, and that we need to address the deep inequalities in the provision of seafarer welfare at UK ports?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate and for the work he is doing as chair of the APPG for acquired brain injury; I worked with his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), on these issues. I want to speak about the case of Imran Douglas, the deceased son of my constituent Amy, to illustrate why an acquired brain injury strategy and action plan should no longer be a matter of if but when. Imran was born in 1995 and suffered a brain injury as a result of a road accident when he was just 17. He was in a coma, and when he woke up he was found to have significant personality changes. Imran was taken into care, having never previously needed psychiatric assessments or had any run-ins with the authorities or the criminal justice system. While in care, Imran committed a horrific act of murder—something which his mother, my constituent, has always maintained was a brutal and undeserved attack for which Imran was responsible—of an elderly person who was completely innocent. Imran was then transferred to hospital, and in 2013 pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Imran was the first 18-year-old to be sent to Belmarsh prison following his sentencing. He lasted less than a week, because he killed himself. A subsequent inquest into Imran’s death found a lack of planning and a failure of care by some of those responsible for his welfare while he was in custody, who were aware of Imran’s condition. It spoke to “a systemic lack of communication between, and within, almost all the agencies involved most notably within Feltham Young Offenders Institution.” In other words, he should not have been transferred to Belmarsh prison. Since his suicide, Imran’s mother Amy and his father Masum have been fighting for a serious case review. They have been fighting for several years but have never been granted one. Over the years, Imran’s parents have worked with the Acquired Brain Injury Forum and various other campaign groups for changes in the law to identify brain injury at much earlier stages, and ensure that people in this country have the right to support in that regard. I pay tribute to them for their efforts over the years to deal with the pain of that loss and the tragic circumstances around it, and to use their energy and time to campaign for change. They know, as I do, that any action plan must be wide-ranging, comprehensive and multifaceted, because the prevalence of acquired brain injury among those with contact with the criminal justice system is reported to be around the 46% to 60% overall, between 50% to 87% among children, and 78% among women. I have supported the work of Brainkind, an organisation that has evidenced the impact of brain injury on domestic abuse survivors. Its report, “Too Many to Count”, found that one in two survivors of domestic abuse may have sustained a brain injury, often through blows to the head or through non-fatal strangulation. As chair of the domestic violence and abuse all-party parliamentary group, I know that our membership is well aware of the correlation between women in prison and undiagnosed conditions such as acquired brain injury. What is important for a revised or shorter action plan is to ensure that Departments and services speak to one another—that should be worked into the action plan itself—and that there are duties placed on national bodies, Government services and social services to collect and analyse data, and to share it with each other. Ultimately, if we look at the case of Imran, even just data collection and sharing between services could have perhaps prevented his death. It is also important to ensure that the action plan invests in awareness training and support. Brainkind is doing some work around that, and has developed a new free tool—not a diagnostic tool, but a tool that professionals can use for support when working with survivors of acquired brain injury. Those are the areas that we need to look at if we want not just to present, but to deliver an action plan that can be passed through as soon as possible. My constituent Amy has shown incredible resilience and fortitude; she is someone who reflects on what happened to her son and commits herself to trying to change things in society. While she continues to advocate for changes to the way in which serious case reviews are conducted, and to the difficult, onerous processes around them, she knows that the picture is much larger. It is a nationwide issue and it needs a national framework. I mention Amy again because there is a need for serious case reviews, and I saw what she and Imran’s father Masum went through in trying to secure one. From my engagement with the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and with other survivors and families that I have met, I can say that the thresholds that need to be met for a serious case review are applied inconsistently by local government and social services across the country. That is why there are not that many serious case reviews—I appreciate that they are reviews of serious cases, but the threshold seems incredibly high, even when a situation presents itself where it is probably better to have one than not. I raise that issue because some of these matters could be addressed through a strategy and a more focused, shortened, action-oriented plan for the issue. A number of campaigners have called for data collection, analysis, awareness, training, data sharing and collaboration. I started engaging on these issues and matters as a result of my constituents’ case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned, since about 2020 we have had lots of discussions, meetings and engagement. Progress was made under the previous Government to present a strategy, but we need to deliver it now. It has been five years since I started engaging on these issues. We need a society where no one loses their life to murder or suicide. I hope that the Minister can relay to us some form of timeline for when action plans and strategies can be delivered.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This Budget has delivered some welcome measures, including increasing the minimum wage for young adults, lowering energy bills and, of course, lifting the two-child limit. I want to be clear that I voted to add that measure to the Government’s programme—I did not vote against the King’s Speech—and I am proud to be on the right side of history, alongside other colleagues, standing with my constituents to right this wrong in the sixth largest economy in the world. Governments are judged on how well they can create the conditions to prevent illness and to enable children and adults to live long and healthy lives. Before the last election, the NHS had already suffered years of austerity and starvation of investment, as confirmed by the Darzi report last year. However, the reality is that the overall announcements in the Budget are not on the scale needed. Patients, NHS staff and campaigners are clear that the solutions must involve proper funding for the NHS, including capital investment, and that there need to be mechanisms to raise money to address the catastrophe that the Tories drove us into. Ending outsourcing and privatisation, through a wholesale renegotiation of current PFI debts to reduce future payouts, is one way of addressing the issue of chronic underfunding. The UK already spends far less on health than do many other countries in Europe. Politics is a matter of priorities and making choices about in whose interests decisions are made. That is why I have grave concerns about the reintroduction of the use of private capital for building NHS neighbourhood health centres, given that past arrangements, such as PFI and PF2, are still damaging the NHS. In fact, all the evidence shows that the involvement of the private sector in the NHS has been disastrous in east London. The trials and tribulations of Barts NHS trust reveal the significant threat of PFIs to NHS budgets, and consequently the ability of trusts to provide the care that NHS patients deserve and that trusts want to provide. At its core, privatisation is a question of resourcing. The extraction of profits from the system has been shown to undermine capacity and value for money, and to take money away from vital patient services, in other words undermining investment and renewal itself. My constituents do not want to be told that there will be more of the same. They are absolutely and utterly desperate for change. It is crucial that any NHS reform prioritises building back publicly provided NHS services, ends privatisation and does not become PFI 2.0. Big business should not be lining its pockets at the expense of our society’s health and wellbeing. The Government made a manifesto promise that the NHS will always be publicly owned and funded. Taxpayers’ money should be spent only on the service itself, because health should be a question of people not profit.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Domestic Abuse: Children · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, following the removal of the presumption of contact, to now launch an expedited parliamentary audit to assess evidence of forced child removals? It something that Right to Equality and the Survivor Family Network have pulled together evidence around and are advocating for.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Domestic Abuse: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, given that the concept of parental alienation—largely used by fathers against mothers in cases involving domestic violence in the family courts—does not have a robust, methodologically sound or scientific basis, the use of regulated and unregulated experts on it should be prohibited in the family courts?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls in London. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. Violence against women and girls remains one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. The statistics are stark and frightening: according to Refuge, there were more than 159,000 reports of domestic abuse crimes in Greater London in 2024 alone, and globally almost one in three women have been subjected to physical or sexual intimate partner violence at least once in their life. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their life. It damages health and wellbeing and undermines democratic freedom and our pursuit of equality. Urgent and immediate action is overdue. Survivors are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down by systems, structures, institutions and processes. Today, I aim to set out why there continues to be a need for a multifaceted approach and for a strategy that is both comprehensive and cross-departmental, going beyond criminal justice to social security, employment, housing and so on, to address perpetrators while empowering survivors. The Minister has been deeply committed to this area, and I will continue to engage constructively with her work, including through the work of the APPG on domestic violence and abuse, in the interests of victims and survivors in London and far beyond. This debate aims to further our mutual interests and our commitments to survivors, regionally and nationally, in anticipation of the upcoming new VAWG strategy, which I understand may be published very soon. Parts of my speech, like much of my work over the past year, will be about responses to this problem beyond the criminal justice system, but I want to be clear that there can be no question but that the criminal justice system woefully lets down survivors. I continue to be concerned about perpetrators being released too early from prison, as well as the abysmal prosecution and conviction rates. The lack of independent and high-quality legal advice for survivors is concerning, as is the lack of available legal aid funding. That sits alongside the postcode lottery of who is able to receive support from an independent domestic or sexual violence advocate. The importance of funding, to enable frontline workers to help survivors navigate the complexity of the criminal justice system and access lifesaving legal advice, cannot be overstated. Distrust of the police continues to be at an all-time high. Not dealing properly with abusers in their own ranks undermines trust. The Casey review, in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard, was a damning indictment of the Metropolitan Police Service: it found the force to be institutionally sexist, racist and homophobic. This is also reflected in the abhorrent behaviour shown in the recent “Panorama” documentary. Survivors in London simply need to be given the confidence to come forward and report abuse when it occurs, without the fear of not being believed or the prospect of facing penalising consequences themselves. During last year’s debate, I spoke about the London Victims’ Commissioner’s stalking review, which found that 45% of stalking victims withdrew from the justice process and a further 41% saw no further police action on their complaints. The review evidenced the disastrous consequences of the confusion and lack of awareness among police and prosecutors: that police continue to treat incidents as single events, meaning that stalking goes unrecognised and patterns of behaviour are not properly understood. In my own experience, the current stalking legislation allows stalkers to be colluded with and encourages repeat behaviour, punishing victims who resist and reject their stalker’s behaviour. As the review detailed , the phenomenon of “moving forward” or “threat management” strategies is well recognised in research, but is in practice too often weaponised against victims, who are blamed for not being the “perfect” victim. I know this all too well. I was pleased to learn that the Home Office is now carrying out a review on stalking legislation. It is my hope that the outcome will be to pivot stalking investigations and prosecutions towards a suspect-focused lens that does not place the onus on the victim to prove that their stalker has achieved their aim. As of November last year, domestic abuse protection orders had been piloted by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice in parts of south London, including Croydon, Bromley and Sutton, and in Greater Manchester, with the intention of providing victims with the option of being protected from non-physical abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour, with immediate protection following an incident of abuse. This is a civil order that can span different courts, as I understand it. It would be helpful to understand whether the Minister believes that that has been a success, and whether there is any intention of a wider and more permanent roll-out. It is imperative to end impunity by holding perpetrators accountable, with support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system. Not only do the law and the court systems let us down, but they are even being used by our abusers, including through stalking by way of the courts—in other words, lawfare. It is striking that my and other women’s experiences of vexatious litigation continue to be commonplace in the court system, including in family courts, where some of the gravest injustices and harms are reproduced. The momentous decision to remove the dangerous presumption that all parents, even abusive ones, should have involvement in their children’s lives is therefore incredibly welcome. I have no doubt that hon. Members will be discussing that in this week’s Backbench Business debate, but I highlight it today because I note that it was made possible through cross-departmental working between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I look forward to seeing the process of placing it on the statute book. Just as the impact of violence against women and girls is vast and far-reaching, so must the solution be. As I have mentioned, a whole-system approach is vital. Indeed, I understand that the upcoming VAWG strategy aims to distinguish itself from VAWG strategies of previous Governments in that way. Since last year, I have been campaigning for greater protections for survivors in the workplace. Unexplained absences, lateness and negative impacts on performance can feature in an individual’s working life. For many survivors, abuse continues in the workplace: often, their partner turns up at the workplace or stalks them outside it—something I know at first hand. For some, the workplace is the only safe environment to seek help. In debates on the Employment Rights Bill, I called for measures such as flexible working, paid leave and domestic abuse policies in every workplace, like many other hon. Members in this House. I know that that continues to gain support across the House and in the other place. I believe that being a member of a trade union is the best way for workers to ensure that their rights are upheld. That is certainly the case for survivors. Indeed, many trade unions have been pioneers in this area, such as USDAW, which has ensured alternative payment arrangements, and facilitated one-off payments and flexible working in a number of retail stores across the UK. That is just one example of the work being done by trade unions. The End Not Defend campaign, led by trade unions, trade union activists and workers, is also seeking to bring sexual harassment at work within the scope of the Health and Safety Executive. I reflect on the statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be. Strengthening survivors’ rights at work is the crucial next step towards realising the commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Safe and affordable housing, including social homes, for women and girls escaping is an urgent necessity, and protection from eviction for survivors is essential, including in London. Domestic abuse is a housing issue. There is a reason that my ex-husband and his supporters continue to focus on my living arrangements and regularly try to use the media, and even spur on the far right, in this regard after all these years of attempting to pursue a vexatious case against me about my housing. I want to be clear that I will not be hounded out of my home. There is no doubt about it: the funding crisis for domestic abuse services and other support continues to be catastrophic. Ringfenced investment for refuge provision would recognise refuges as specialist, trauma-informed services and would reflect the expertise required to deliver them. I understand that there is a London-wide grassroots support fund for specialist “by and for” services. Funding is ringfenced for specialist services, but I believe that it must fully recognise that many “by and for” services, such as Southall Black Sisters, are well established and experienced at working with a range of communities across intersectionalities. They should never be left at risk of losing funding. The cost of living crisis is exacerbating economic and financial abuse, with low incomes, rising poverty and soaring rents leaving people feeling trapped in a relationship even when they need to leave. It is therefore no coincidence that the ongoing violence against women and girls crisis comes after more than a decade of attacks on social security. I have never been more alarmed at the risk at which women and girls are being placed by the proposed cuts to welfare. It is well evidenced that they are more reliant on social security and public services, which means that they are more severely impacted when public services and social security nets are cut. I am particularly alarmed by the cuts to disabled people’s benefits, including the health component of universal credit, given that disabled women are twice as likely to experience abuse. That is why it is crucial for disabled people to be the sharpest focus of investment, not cuts. The current political climate has created a toxic and dangerous atmosphere for migrant women, with immigration status and the fear of deportation being used as control tactics by perpetrators. I am therefore reiterating my calls for a firewall between all public services and the Home Office, so that every survivor can report abuse and so that perpetrators cannot evade justice by weaponising immigration status in order to silence, abuse and control. That is something for which the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, I and many others have long campaigned—and, yes, it also remains a matter of urgency that the no recourse to public funds rule be scrapped and that there be an end to the hostile environment. Globally, we know that violence against women and girls continues to be exacerbated by conflicts. In Haiti, women continue to face gang violence, including pervasive sexual violence. In Sudan, the continued reports of mass rapes are incredibly horrific. In Gaza, women and girls are being killed, starved and expected to survive with absolutely nothing, so tackling violence against women and girls must include a ceasefire and stopping all UK arms being sent to Israel or anywhere else to kill women. At home, we must acknowledge that in London and beyond, targeting refugees and anti-migrant scaremongering will not benefit the majority of people. Traumatising already traumatised people, including women seeking asylum in the UK because of violence that they are fleeing, will set back the progress being made to eliminate violence from our society. Most importantly of all, it will harm the very victims and survivors who need support. Systemic discrimination is making it harder for individuals to seek help. Fears of discrimination or bias, such as racism, Islamophobia, homophobia or transphobia, are exacerbated by instances of people being denied assistance and access to public frontline services. When speaking about my own experiences, I have been particularly anxious not to participate in perpetuating tired, racist tropes against Muslims, because we all need to be clear that that does nothing to empower women and girls. Rather, racism is a driver and facilitator of abuse, leading to the voices and lives of ethnic minority women being overlooked and devalued. It is so fundamental that the VAWG strategy is actively anti-racist. I am pleased that a definition of honour-based abuse is now being committed to, and that the Home Office is working with “by and for” services to develop the definition accordingly. It is impossible to cover all the types of violence against women and girls in the time I have today, but I have tried to set out examples to illustrate that violence against women and girls is not a side or separate issue. At its core, it is a question of equality and of the type of world we want to live in. It is intrinsically connected to structural discrimination, exploitation and the intersection of different oppressions, so it requires joined-up thinking and bold and brave initiatives. That is what I hope the next VAWG strategy will have at its heart.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her comments and her commitments. I look forward to the much-anticipated VAWG strategy—hopefully as a nice gift for everyone to read over Christmas—and to working constructively with her in the interests of all survivors, regardless of their backgrounds. I am very grateful for all the contributions today, which touched on not only a wide range of issues but the various local contexts. It is all very valuable and I hope that, over the next 16 days and beyond, we can all speak to our colleagues and make sure we are speaking to everyone in our areas about how we can continue to engage in the 16 days of activities. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls in London.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents believe that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is best placed to deliver aid in Gaza. Given that the International Court of Justice determined that Israel is under a legal obligation to facilitate the aid operations of UN agencies, including UNRWA, in the state of Palestine, does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government need to take urgent action to ensure that its close ally acts in accordance with that determination?

• 18 Nov 2025 · UNESCO: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate; he takes a keen interest in arts and culture, as the chair of the APPG on UNESCO world heritage sites, and I understand that the group aims to grow support and recognition of British world heritage sites and the grassroots organisations that support them. Given the limited time that I have, I want to acknowledge that UNESCO’s stated mission 80 years ago was to strengthen “shared humanity through the promotion of education, science, culture, and communication.” There is no doubt that it has made immeasurable contributions and achievements in that regard. However, in the modern age, some UNESCO world heritage sites could be put at risk by the impact of the climate emergency and its consequences, which can literally include the erosion of some sites. These are issues that we must consider. As chair of the APPG on Bangladesh, I am aware of the ongoing challenges in preserving sites, such as the Sundarbans, which is home to the richest mangrove forest in the world, and is the single largest home of the Bengal tiger. In the global context, it is regrettable that the US has once again pulled funding for UNESCO. I hope that will never be the case in the UK, and I will use my contribution to explain why. Three years ago, I was honoured to lead a debate in this House to commemorate UNESCO International Mother Language Day. It was one of the friendliest debates I have had the immense pleasure of leading in this House, with many hon. Members contributing phrases and sentences in their mother language. The idea to celebrate International Mother Language Day was the initiative of Bangladesh, the country of my parents’ birth, and it emerged from a history of jostling powers and political struggles. It was approved at the 1999 UNESCO general conference and has been observed throughout the world since 21 February 2000. This year marks the 25th anniversary of that important commemoration. International Mother Language Day serves as an opportunity to see the rich tapestry of our linguistic diversity as something to be cherished; a joyful kaleidoscope of possibilities and potential to be revelled in. UNESCO believes in the importance of cultural and linguistic diversity for sustainable societies. That is important because multilingual and multicultural societies exist through their languages, which transmit and preserve traditional knowledge and cultures in a sustainable way, and because linguistic diversity is increasingly threatened as more languages disappear. Globally, we know that 40% of the population do not have access to an education in a language they can speak or understand. None the less, progress is being made in multilingual education, with growing understanding of its importance, particularly in early schooling, and with more commitment to its development in public life. Within its mandate for peace, UNESCO works to preserve the differences in cultures and languages that foster tolerance and respect for others. As the daughter of migrants, representing a constituency in a borough where over 90 different languages have been identified as spoken, I believe there is a need, more than ever, for the histories, cultures and languages of diverse communities to feature more across the educational curriculum, local services and the cultural sector. The rise of anti-migrant rhetoric and racism in the UK, and around the world, highlights the importance of the inclusion of diverse cultural storytelling, with the demand to ensure that school curriculums include educating young people about racism and imperialism. There is a need to rebalance historical and social narratives that currently exclude certain experiences and perspectives, because we all have a duty to ensure that the next generation has a better understanding of the historical injustices contributing to the institutional racism that persists in the UK and elsewhere today. My constituency in east London is home to the historic UNESCO world heritage site, the Tower of London—the iconic castle that we find decorating souvenirs all over London and the globe. It is a magnet for tourism, as many hon. Members will be aware. Shortly after my election six years ago, I became aware that a small community serving the Tower actually live on the site. However, I am aware that it is left vulnerable to the encroaching City of London to the west. The City of London looks to stimulate economic growth by creating more office space and, as such, more tall buildings. I understand that conversations between the Tower and the City about the City of London’s 2040 plan continue, but it seems more likely than ever that over time it will become more difficult to preserve the Tower’s setting. I understand that the International Council on Monuments and Sites has asked the Government for an update on the state of conservation report, and I hope that those discussions will continue.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Deporting families after they have resettled here because their country is deemed safe is simply wrong. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the Government determine what a safe country is? Will she publish the criteria? She mentioned the DRC; is she really saying that it is a safe country? Will she publish all existing returns agreements, so that Members of this House, and indeed the British public, can properly scrutinise them? I have done the reading, and that is not in the detail.

• 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.