Rupa Huq MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Immigration Rules: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  It is a fact to be proud of that four of the world’s 10 greatest universities in the global rankings are in the UK, including Imperial College London’s White City campus in my constituency. We punch way above our population weight and our universities are genuine engines of growth. However, evidence shows that the withdrawal of the post-study work visa coupled with the rumours about changes in indefinite leave to remain are driving some of those brightest brains who have produced such statistics to competitor countries. Will my right hon. Friend meet me, education Ministers and my two vice-chancellors to thrash out a solution? There are real problems, but we do not want to scare off genuine innovators and wealth creators.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Last Wednesday—it seems so much longer ago—saw the second King’s Speech of this Labour Government, with 37 Bills to address the UK’s economic, energy and national security at a time of gigantic global challenge, much of it unforeseeable at the time of the last King’s Speech in 2024. A stunning proposer—from Bradford like you, Madam Deputy Speaker—was followed by the Prime Minister’s forceful plea for a change to the status quo, which he mentioned 10 times. I was having visions of “Rockin’ All Over the World”, but he was, of course, spot on. After the first King’s Speech—no, not the Colin Firth film—of employment rights, renters’ rights and rail nationalisation, the sequel will bring British Steel into public ownership in the public interest, end the leasehold scam and see a social housing Bill for a million families trapped on waiting lists in temporary accommodation. Some of it was promised by the Tories and never delivered. On broken promises, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the fateful vote that bequeathed us Brexit, I welcome the EU partnership Bill and the Government’s rebuilding a stronger relationship with Europe. We were told that Brexit would make us richer, that we would see migration down and that it would make us more secure. Wrong on all three counts. As the mum of an undergrad, I know that Brexit robbed young people of their ability to work, study and live easily in Europe, so I applaud the youth experience scheme and rejoining Erasmus. I would suggest the circular economy directive as one to sign up to. The referendum was indeed fateful, but not fatal, thanks to this Government’s action securing the highest growth in the G7. I would say that circumstances have changed so dramatically since 2024, it might be time to consider relaxing some of the red lines on single market and customs union membership. Just a thought. Unlocking barriers to growth is also in the Bills on the industrial strategy, national security, investing in defence and the armed forces, and repairing public services like the NHS, policing and special educational needs. On immigration reform, I must forewarn the House that I will be one of probably a number of MPs lobbying for the modification of the earned settlement proposals, but they are not inked in yet, so we are hopeful. I regret that there is nothing in the King’s Speech on my ballot Bill on ticketing to fix Oasis-style rip-offs and surge pricing. My old union, the University and College Union, is disappointed that there is nothing much in the King’s Speech for universities or further education, despite the multiple crises that the sectors are facing. But we are where we are and, as I have said, it is an ambitious programme with 37 Bills. As events in the strait of Hormuz affect prices at the pumps in Acton, the energy security proposal in the King's Speech is very welcome. If implemented, it will mean that we are no longer at the mercy of those who would push us around in foreign wars but can withstand global instability, with clean, home-grown energy independence. All these are things the Tories would never do, and Reform—none of whose Members are in the Chamber at present—would undo. Much has been done and there is much more to do, including repairing and rebuilding the European alliances that have been so damaged by 14 years of Tory rule, the first five of which, I should remind the House, were propped up by the Liberal Democrats: they too were handmaidens to austerity, although they tend to forget that nowadays. It has not been an overnight process, but reversing the Tories’ mess to build a more resilient country is under way. Our constituents voted for change, and they expect their Government to get on with it.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Can everyone who wants to speak stand so that we can calculate the time limit? It is going to be three-minutes, I am afraid. I call Ed Argar to set an exemplary example.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Order. One of the displays is defunct, so it may be difficult for Members to see when their three minutes have ended. I will signal 30 seconds before their time runs out.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Let us not have chuntering from a sedentary position.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diesel Vehicles: Defeat Devices · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes such an excellent point as he always does. It is an honour to be intervened on by him. As he said, this was done with intent all over the British Isles, in all our nations. He mentioned the VW scandal. As I say, there could be worse round the corner. Despite the outlawing of these defeat devices, VW could just be the tip of a very murky iceberg. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this is not just about the men in white coats in the laboratory getting their technical results. This is not a fringe issue: it affects all our constituents and has real life consequences. Air pollution is one of our most pressing environmental challenges. Noxious nitrogen oxide emissions can cause respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease and childhood asthma—even premature deaths, which have been quantified. In London, the city where we are now and where I am an MP, the devastating human impact was tragically illustrated by the desperately sad case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah: dead at just nine years old. Hers was the first ever case in which the cause of death on the certificate was “pollution”. The family had lived by the south circular; the north circular is in my seat. Ella’s mum, Rosamund, has been such a tireless campaigner in pushing for Ella’s law. Mums for Lungs has also done great work, while Parent Power had a breakfast event this morning on the other side of the building. Clean air is not a “nice to have”, but an essential. We would not force a kid to drink dirty water, yet we expect them to breathe toxic air. Sadiq Khan’s ultra low emission zone in this city has helped to clean London of dirty diesel, but we know that children in vulnerable communities are the most susceptible. These cars were bought in good faith. Remember Gordon Brown’s 2001 Budget: in those days, buying a diesel vehicle was incentivised. It was seen as environmentally superior to petrol because of the miles per gallon; in those days, people were not looking at NOx, but more at carbon dioxide. In that year’s Budget, I think, the road tax—and certain things for company fleets—actually encouraged diesel. The VW scandal was a genuine scandal, just like the others I have seen since I have been here such as the contaminated blood and Post Office scandals. In its aftermath, the market share of diesels in this country has fallen from 50% in 2014 to just 5% now. But the bigger dieselgate 2 is on the horizon. If defeat devices have dishonestly been fitted to vehicles and emitted pollutants at levels way beyond what is legal and what consumers were led to believe, that leaves huge holes in Government enforcement and regulatory credibility. This will have been poisoning people. I have a range of questions for the Minister. Although these vehicles are not being sold new any more, figures from Mums for Lungs show that 7.5 million diesel cars—a quarter of all UK cars—are still on our roads. They are responsible for 30% of total NOx emissions. There are also the vans, buses, the HGVS—if we add all those up, we see that action must occur. In autumn 2024, the Department for Transport confirmed that it is investigating the possible use of defeat device trickery by several manufacturers. Rather than delve into the lengthy legal proceedings today, I want to raise questions about that Government inquiry, which is at best sketchy and is bound up in public health and consumer protection. It all seems to be shrouded in secrecy. There is the prospect, here, of illegally high emissions and asthma being in the equation, so every moment the results are delayed puts more children’s lungs at risk. At a time when everyone wants growth, Mums for Lungs has calculated that the UK economy is losing: action on dieselgate is expected to cost our economy £36 billion in the next 14 years. There are many reasons why we should address this issue. I am asking the Minister—my good, hon. Friend—to step up a gear. The sheer number of potential claimants in dieselgate 2—1.8 million cars, potentially—dwarfs the settlement that eventually came out of VWgate; that 2022 settlement compensated only 91,000 consumers. This latest issue affects every constituency in the nation—including yours, Ms Lewell. I have some questions: what is the status of the Department’s investigation? What is the timeline for its commencement? Where is it now? When will it conclude? What teeth does it have—i.e. what are the enforcement powers that the Department is prepared to deploy in cases of non-compliance? The Environment Act 2021 strengthened the Government’s ability to require manufacturers to recall vehicles where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they do not meet applicable environmental standards. Is the Department prepared to use those powers when appropriate? Where does the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency fit into that process? What happens to vehicles currently on UK roads if they are found to be emitting unlawfully high levels of pollutants? Will the Government consider requiring their temporary suspension from use until they are brought into compliance? Could they have a little bit of tinkering and be okay? According to one report from an international climate think-tank, excess emissions may already lead to 16,000 premature deaths in the UK and 30,000 new cases of childhood asthma. Overnight, Mums for Lungs sent me a whole load of new figures that I have not entirely processed, but which I can pass on to the Minister. If manufacturers are found to have breached the rules, who bears the financial burden of remedial action? Surely not the consumers who bought these vehicles in good faith. They thought that they were doing the right thing and believed that they were compliant. How do the Government intend to safeguard public health in the interim? In 2016, the Tory Government launched an inquiry into the use of defeat devices by VW, but ultimately, they did not prosecute. The Transport Committee at the time expressed concerns about the Department for Transport’s “ambivalence” towards VW’s use of defeat devices. It described the Department as being “too slow to assess the use of its powers”. In other words, it was asleep at the wheel. This Minister is different from that former Minister, and I am sure that he will not repeat the mistakes of the last Tory Government. There is now a second chance. The DFT should clearly prioritise the interests of the public and consumers in its current investigation. A decade after we were duped over diesel in the first emissions scandal, the public should not be left wondering whether enforcement powers will be used if wrongdoing is found. Court proceedings can take forever, but we must have assurances of urgency, transparency and consequence in the Government’s investigation, which is within their control. Communities deserve clean air and consumers deserve honesty and protection. I am no Jeremy Clarkson. I cycle more than I drive, but I do both, and I take public transport every weekday. I find that it is difficult to know what is best and it can be bewildering—what is up or down and what is happening. The goalposts are constantly changing. What is it that is demonised? First it was petrol, then it was diesel. Now they have both been overtaken by electric, which is what we should all be using. I am pleased to see the roll-out of the Enviro400 and Enviro500 buses in London. However, for the average consumer it can be bewildering when the advice keeps changing and it can then feel a bit punitive. Environmental standards must mean what they say. If they are breached there must be proportionate and decisive action. For far too long, motor manufacturers in the UK have victimised the public. They have misled consumers about pollution emitted by diesel engines, and they have put millions of citizens at risk simply because they live or work near roads. VW recovered its reputation to some extent. Certainly, on the Nextdoor app, people are still complaining that its badges are being nicked from the front of their cars. Whoever is doing that, can they stop? It is completely unnecessary to remove the circular VW logo. These companies should come clean and make things right with those who they have harmed. The Government should do everything in their power to ensure that the public are in the driving seat. We should not have to wait for dieselgate 3.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Diesel Vehicles: Defeat Devices · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of defeat devices in diesel vehicles. It is a true pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. It was over a decade ago that the automotive industry, and indeed the world, was rocked by dieselgate, the Volkswagen emissions scandal. The public were horrified to learn about how the trusted German car giant Volkswagen—the one that gave us the “Herbie” kids film franchise and those iconic circular badges that were so beloved of the Beastie Boys—had knowingly faked vehicle emissions tests via defeat devices. Those devices are software designed to alter a vehicle’s performance, falsify results and limit emissions during the regulatory testing period, only to switch to their true polluting selves when they are driven on open roads. VW’s range of diesel compact cars had been marketed as a green alternative to petrol, but it was found that it had been knowingly cooking the books to the point that the US Environmental Protection Agency found VW’s top people guilty of conspiracy to defraud customers. Confidence was shattered, share prices nosedived, reputational damage was done, vehicles were recalled, fines were paid, heads rolled at the managerial level, and the once-encouraged diesel became discredited—its fate in London was finally sealed by the ultra low emission zone. We were assured that lessons would be learned, yet despite the outlawing of defeat devices, the problem seems to be wider than originally thought. “Dieselgate 2: The Sequel” is proceeding very slowly through the courts. I think there are several cases. Multiple models and manufacturers are accused of the same thing: spewing out dangerous and excessive emissions due to cheat technology. Companies have been knowingly deceiving drivers. It feels a bit like match fixing to those of us of a certain age—Bruce Grobbelaar comes to mind. Consumers have been conned once again into believing that they were driving greener, cleaner diesel cars. Results have been rigged. It feels almost as if I cannot go on the internet now without some sort of pop-up advert rearing its head—“Have you driven a Mercedes, a Ford, a Nissan, a Renault, a Citroën or a Peugeot between X and Y years? If so, click here to see how much compensation you could get.” It is all a little bit like ambulance chasing, is it not?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He used to work for Save the Children, which has also been de-registered—the shame of it. We must act. There has been a systematic discrediting of the UN. United Nations Relief and Works Agency buildings have been destroyed, and Francesca Albanese has been accused of being a witch and sanctioned by the US. And what has been proposed in place of the UN? The Gaza board of peace, headed by Donald Trump, which costs $1 billion to join. The board has zero Palestinian representation, but Putin, the President’s son-in-law and Netanyahu all have seats, and its founding charter does not mention Gaza. The UK must not give that vanity project any credence. Extremist Israeli Ministers have been sanctioned and 30 arms licences suspended, but, as the facts worsen on the ground, we must ramp up our support for real peace efforts, as opposed to grubby real estate deals that are void of international law and bypass Palestinians. Even the ceasefire negotiators were bombed in Qatar. Of course, the acts of Hamas on 7 October must be condemned, but Netanyahu’s war cabinet has since gone way beyond self-defence. Starvation, and the erasure of the international presence to gather evidence on what might or might not be a genocide, must set off alarm bells and requires urgent action for us to be on the right side of history. We must say no to the board of peace. We need a toughened sanctions package and arms embargo, and a full ban on trade in settlement goods—not just the present situation of tariff reductions.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief: Food Prices · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas to you and your crew, Mr Speaker. Food prices from farm to fork are particularly tough on coeliac sufferers. Their shops are 35% dearer, and a loaf of bread costs six times the standard price. Will my Front-Bench colleagues look into Italy’s allowance system, in order to replace our outmoded subscription model, which is bad value for the taxpayer?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Fairtrade Certification · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Picture the scene: Downing Street in December and jolly Christmas trees sparkling away. No, it is not “Love Actually”, but the moment—exactly 24 hours ago, I think —that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), other officers of the all-party parliamentary group and I handed in the petition of 22,000 constituents. Such was the volume of names, the petition was in a blue cardboard box, carrying the logo that my hon. Friend described, with the distinctive swirly light-green and blue with a dot connoting a person. It was the Fairtrade logo, which people trust. It is like a kitemark. When we buy stuff with the Fairtrade logo—bananas or whatever it is—we know what it means. As people have described, there is a minimum price guarantee for the farmer, and there is the Fairtrade premium—the financial bonus for community projects. Certification is a two-way bargain. On their side, the person being supplied has to provide transparent contracts. There are lots of things that these smallholders—they are often tiny farmers—find difficult, like getting finance up front, before the harvest season. Under the Fairtrade scheme, they can get money up front. The scheme is about people, sustainability and community first, before naked transactional profit. Smallholding farmers can club together and get a lot more access to international markets than they would be able to get on their own. The scheme increases their bargaining capacity. It is also democratic and run on co-operative—I am a member of the Co-operative party—principles. The premium could go to football pitches, tuition fees or classrooms; that is decided by the community. I do not know whether I am the only one in the room old enough to remember the 1980s and the advert with the man from Del Monte. Do you remember him, Mrs Hobhouse? He was a little bit neocolonialist in his hat and linen suit, and he swooped into a paradise-like community. Well, it was not all paradise, was it? He was on a plantation somewhere or other—it was an unnamed location—stroking his beard and inspecting fruit produce. It was some far-off location—somewhere in sunny climes. He was this western impresario and the community were all there, with their great expectations. In the end, the cliffhanger was resolved with a thumb up—“The man from Del Monte, he say yes!”, as one of the urchin children said. I like to think that in this day and age, it would be a certified, kitemark-able, Fairtrade business and the little urchin would be going to a school provided by this system and enjoying kicking a ball about on a pitch built with these community funds. That is what we would like to think, but it is an uneven playing field, as people have described. The Minister is wearing a jolly waistcoat himself for this debate. It is very festive—I like it.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Fairtrade Certification · Hansard source

  More

  It is made in Britain, but not everything can be. Bananas, coffee, chocolate—that is what we are talking about. The man from Del Monte said yes. In the time that has elapsed since the mid-’80s, when that advert was first shown, British consumers have become more demanding and sought more reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) referred to palm oil. In 2018, there was the advert for Iceland—not the country; the frozen food giant—that showed the orangutan who was sad that his habitat was disappearing because of palm oil. People are becoming more and more discerning. There is a worry, though, because we are in a cost of living crisis and people are looking for cheaper alternatives, which are not necessarily the ethical things, if the prices of those things are too many multiples of the cost of the standard-price item. The petition that we handed in says that manufacturers should not be penalised for doing the right thing. We should not always be rushing to a lowest common denominator situation. This campaign for fair trade, which all our constituents are behind, links to concerns about deforestation and about fast fashion. Is it worth getting something for £4 from Primark if it comes with a real cost of many litres of water and hardship? The petition looks particularly at tea, the national drink—we all enjoy a cuppa. At a time when the UK is seeing the biggest uplift to workers’ rights ever, in one go, this debate is about those things we cannot get at home: bananas, coffee, chocolate, flowers, tea, cotton and gold. They are all implicated when we hear of a dark side of undesirable practices in businesses’ supply chains: human rights abuses, environmental damage, child labour—all sorts of things. We are now outside the EU—something that I regret—and we are looking for free trade agreements. In that pursuit, let us not forget fair trade. We do not want farmers to be subject to naked exploitation—modern slavery. The indicators are good. Quarter 3 of this year spanned Fairtrade fortnight, which was the end of September to the beginning of October, and figures from the Fairtrade Foundation show that Fairtrade tea sales were up by 40%—it was a record quarter—confectionary up 20% and coffee up 15%. All the polls show that 95% of shoppers believe that businesses should take responsibility for upholding human rights throughout their supply chains. What we were all trying to say with the petition is that those who already invest in ethical sourcing should not be penalised. Introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence would level the playing field so that those operating responsibility are not undercut by those cutting corners and exploiting loopholes. Such legislation would be the single most cost-effective way to enhance the UK’s reputation as a champion of net zero, too. At the moment, we have a fragmented system, with different logos, such as the swirly one I mentioned and those of the Rainforest Alliance, Red Tractor and so on. It is a little inconsistent. We should have one system for all, with an enforceable and consistent framework to protect people and planet. We should protect small-scale farmers and workers worldwide against a race to the bottom with fair prices. When we delivered the petition yesterday, I found out that Sainsbury’s has a human rights department—that I did not know. Other supermarkets are available, of course—Waitrose, the good old Co-op and so on. We also want to continue our transition to net zero. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) has gone—that’s Lib Dems for you—but he mentioned the aid budget cut. It was in our manifesto that we will work towards restoring that budget, so I hope that we will be able to do that when time allows. The main asks of the petition are a UK law on human rights and environmental due diligence; encouragement of multi-stakeholder collaboration in the tea sector, progressing towards living incomes and living wages for tea growers; and honouring of our climate finance obligations and, when time allows, restoration of our aid budget. This is not just something for far-off places and the man from Del Monte. In 2003, Ealing council passed its first fair-trade measure and the Ealing Co-op was very active in Fairtrade fortnight, garnering some of those 22,000 signatures. My alma mater, Notting Hill girls’ school, is apparently now a Fairtrade school. St Stephen’s church and many other faith communities locally have also campaigned for fair trade. If you want any more persuading of the good souls behind this cause, Mrs Hobhouse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North can attest, yesterday our cardboard box attracted a lot of attention from, if not Downing Street’s most famous inhabitant, certainly the most consistent one in my time in this place, which has spanned six different Prime Ministers: the contented purring that we heard proved to us that Larry the cat is on side as well.

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

  More

  We have heard some brilliant points. I want to concentrate on our universities. Imperial College’s White City campus and the University of West London in my seat in Ealing are genuinely world-beating UK universities that generate billions of exports. They are central to UK soft power and global relationships, but almost everyone faces financial challenges, so they have had to diversify income streams to cross-subsidise their work. Attracting globally excellent researchers and international student fee income has helped them to just about manage. Ex-colleagues of mine are closing down degrees reluctantly. Whole institutions face going bust. With competitiveness and growth at the heart of the Government’s missions, if the UK makes it too onerous, our universities will lose talent and market share to Canada, Australia and the US. Settled status is five years in most of the rest of Europe, so unwittingly we are advantaging our rivals. At Imperial College’s White City innovation incubator, I saw many international postgrads pioneering scientific and technological advances, some on the two-year post-study work visa, which is also being cut. The UK higher education sector’s teaching, research and innovation activities benefit our economy to the tune of £265 billion, but after 14 years of chronic underfunding there is now potentially another blow impacting our constituents, students, staff and those from lower-income backgrounds, who are typically more debt averse and will be put off entering HE at all. PwC found that UK universities expect to increasingly rely on international student fees, and they are vulnerable to reductions in numbers. That is pre White Paper. In fact, this is not just hypothetical; in many cases we are already seeing the UK’s declining attractiveness. In 2024, Home Office figures showed a 19% decline in student visas from the year before, because of the rules to stop students bringing family. Universities have a vital part to play in growth and productivity across the UK, but we could be sleepwalking into a perfect storm, with straitened circumstances, decreasing international competitiveness and increasing expenditure putting universities under more and more pressure. We need to be honest about the trade-offs involved in reducing immigration, and about culture wars. What I am talking about is a million miles away from illegal boat migrants living it up in hotels and sapping resources from locals. A skilled talent pathway Hong Kong BNO person from Ealing who contacted me says of her circle: “We have paid Visa application…fees…Health Surcharge…Income Tax”— and national insurance roughly amounting to— “£60,000 per person over five years. Additional spending in the UK economy…rent, council tax, consumer purchases, education and childcare…payments…made in good faith—under a policy we trusted would remain consistent for those already on the pathway.” Much of what is proposed in the White Paper is welcome and sensible, but we should not move the goalposts for those already in the system and trash solemn promises that we made to them. Along with considerations of immigration and universities, we must consider work, vocational education, further education provision, what universities are for and their role in levelling up, and all those sorts of things. We need a realistic strategy for their long-term financial sustainability, and their role in regeneration and growth. It is a graphic equaliser. This was only a White Paper, so I hope that Ministers can take our points into account. Let us keep to our word, and let us keep the British higher education sector the envy of the world.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are in London, the greatest city in the world—some would say anyway—and we have all just come back from holiday, have we not? Our Mayor Sadiq Khan has ambitious plans for an overnight accommodation levy that would put us on a par with Paris and New York and would harness our growth. Those funds could help regenerate the tourism sector and improve the visitor experience. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would be open to using this devolution Bill to give mayors everywhere the power to make decisions about those kind of things.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  It is truly momentous that this Government look set to put long-standing UK policy into practice and recognise Palestine this month, but it feels like time is running out for a two-state solution, as the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged. We have now witnessed man-made famine, the bombing of hospitals and hostages, and the denigration of the UN—I think the PLO delegation is banned from the General Assembly—going against all international norms, so would he agree with my constituents that on trade, sanctions and settlements, it is time to step up a gear in this ever-worsening situation and put the full force of action behind his very strong statements?