Yasmin Qureshi MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about the people displaced in Lebanon, does the hon. Member agree that if there is to be a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, all 700,000-odd people who were forcibly expelled from the west bank, from Gaza and from elsewhere during the Nakba must be allowed to return? At the moment they are all in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  May I say how proud I am to sit behind a Foreign Secretary with the courage to take this action? I thank the Prime Minister for showing leadership on this matter as well. Let us be clear what this is about: Israel’s occupation of the west bank and Gaza is illegal under international law. Israel has moved more than 700,000 settlers on to Palestinian land and forced half a million Palestinians from their homes, while the new planned E1 settlement will, according to Israel’s own Ministers, “bury” a two-state solution. These sanctions target trade from illegal settlements, not Israel and not Jewish people, and anyone who says otherwise is being deliberately misleading. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that no amount of pressure from Washington or Tel Aviv would cause the Government to retreat from doing this?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement. As a former criminal law barrister, I represented defendants who were given IPP sentences. They were required to complete courses, treatments and rehabilitation before they could be considered for release, yet many were never offered any of those things in time, leaving them unable to be reviewed by the Parole Board through no fault of their own. Can the Lord Chancellor say what he is doing to ensure that prisoners get the help and courses that they need in time for their parole eligibility?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  There are 4.5 million unpaid carers in England. I have first-hand knowledge of the impact of that on carers and their families, having been a carer for two members of my own family, but I also know that for millions of carers the emotional and financial toll is far greater than what I faced. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that when the Casey review has been completed, funding will not be the reason for its recommendations not to be implemented?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Waste Management Sites · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this very important debate. I want to speak about a case in my constituency that shows the problem and, importantly, what the solution can look like. Last July, business owners near the Hurstwood Court recycling centre on Raikes Lane in Burnden contacted me about traffic and road safety. Queues for the site were backing up on to St Peter’s Way and spilling on to Manchester Road. Access to local businesses was being blocked, and there was a real safety risk. That was happening day after day. I brought together Bolton council, Recycle for Greater Manchester and the operator, SUEZ, to address the problem. To their credit, all parties acted. A hatched yellow box has been painted at the entrance and exit to keep it clear. The entrance has been reprofiled so that more vehicles can wait on the site while speaking to the gate attendant, rather than queuing on the public road. A new turning space has been created for vehicles leaving without entering the centre, and cones have been installed to stop the parking that was blocking sightlines. To be honest, those measures have not solved the problem completely, but they have mitigated some of the worst of it and have made real differences to residents and businesses. Alongside the physical changes, Recycle for Greater Manchester has been suggesting alternative, less busy sites, and advising people on when the centre is quiet. There are more than 20 recycling centres across Greater Manchester, and spreading visits across them eases the pressure on individual sites. The wider point is that traffic build-up at waste sites is not a one-off; it is a recurring and entirely foreseeable pattern, particularly at older sites that simply were not designed for today’s volumes of traffic and waste. Too often, the response is reactive: action comes only after residents, businesses or Members of Parliament push for it. Communities should not have to run a campaign to get a yellow box painted on the road. I have three questions for the Minister. First, will the Department encourage joined-up working among councils, waste authorities and operators as standard practice, rather than as something that happens only when it is demanded locally? Secondly, what support and funding are available to councils for physical improvements at older sites, such as the reprofiled entrances and turning space that made the difference in Bolton? Thirdly, will the Government look at establishing a clearer, ongoing channel so that residents and businesses near waste sites can raise concerns and do not have to rely on ad hoc local campaigns? Raikes Lane shows what can be achieved when everyone gets around the table, but we still have a lot further to go. What is missing is a system that acts before communities have to fight for change.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is on the duty of candour.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on the point about the duty of candour?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I used to be a prosecutor before coming to this place. We were able to find perfectly good ways of dealing with confidential sources of information—informants and others. There are procedures already in place for that.

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  You are probably aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the fact that I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Primodos for the last 14 years. The Minister may well be aware that earlier in the Bill’s consideration I asked for reassurance that independent panels established by Ministers would be covered, such as the expert working group report on Primodos, which was set up by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency as part of the Department of Health and Social Care. Can the Minister point to where that can be found in the Bill and, if not, will reassurances be given through secondary legislation that those panels are covered by this legislation?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Bolton South and Walkden.

• 14 Jul 2026 · NHS Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  Accountability in the NHS must run down to the patient as well as to Parliament. Local Healthwatch organisations provide an independent voice when services fall short. What safeguards will the Secretary of State put in place to ensure that, as their functions are moved to the integrated care board and local authority, patients in Bolton South and Walkden will retain a genuine independent route to raise concerns? As the Local Government Association has warned, we cannot leave the NHS to mark its own homework.

• 14 Jul 2026 · NHS Accountability · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps he is taking to improve accountability in the NHS.

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

  More

  The shadow Minister says that the Israeli Government should stop these settlements, but as he knows, the Israeli Government have put their full weight behind them. The IDF are there when the settlers are doing these things, so on what basis does he say that the Israeli Government should be doing something about it? They are behind it.

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

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) on securing this very important debate. Somewhere in the UK today, a shopper will put a box of dates or a bottle of wine in their basket. A fraction of what they pay at the till will travel back to a hilltop settlement built on stolen land, which illegal settlers have bulldozed, fenced off and armed against the families who have farmed it for generations. Let me be clear: settler violence is not the work of a lawless fringe group; it is very much supported by the Israeli Government, the state, the army and Israeli Ministers. Israel’s basic law declares that settlement developments are of national value. We heard Prime Minister Netanyahu declare last year that there would be no Palestinian state. He was describing the Israeli Government’s E1 plan, which cuts the west bank into two parts, and his Finance Minister has published plans for annexation of the west bank. Many Israeli leaders have said that they do not want two states, and we have seen that the terrorists torching olive groves and the Ministers signing annexation maps are not separate problems. This year alone, two communities, Khirbet Yanun and Ras Ein al-Auja, have ceased to exist. More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed, settler violence is at a record high, and 350 Palestinian children remain in Israeli military detention. The illegal settlers have swimming pools, but the neighbouring Palestinians cannot even get water. The International Court of Justice looked at the situation and said that there has been an international violation, and that it is racial segregation and apartheid, yet nothing has been done. We in this Government recognised the state of Palestine and restored the UN funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We have also said that we would accept the decisions of the Internation Criminal Court, which has said that we should honour the International Court of Justice’s ruling that the occupation is unlawful and states must not help to sustain it. By not banning trade, we are effectively not abiding by what the International Criminal Court has said. I say to the Minister: please, promise us that those illegal goods will be stopped from coming to this country. I also ask the Minister to recognise that over a number of years we have seen devastation, destruction and genocide in Gaza, we have seen what has been happening in the west bank—what has been mentioned is only part of what has been happening—where old and young people have been terrorised from their homes, and it is about time that we stopped overlooking what the Israeli Government have been doing. It is ironic that, when it is a country that we are supposed to be allied with, nobody criticises their actions or does anything, but when it comes to other countries, we are happy to impose sanctions, make armed interventions and everything else.

• 8 Jul 2026 · NHS Corridor Care · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) on securing this debate and on her tremendous work in this area, both in this House and as an emergency doctor in the NHS. I want to begin not with statistics, but with something that happened to me. Last year, at about 9 o’clock one evening, I stood up to go to watch a film with my family, but I suddenly felt faint and nauseous. A home blood pressure machine showed that my reading was over 200. I went to A&E and was seen, and a CT scan was arranged. I then had to sit on a chair in what was essentially a public waiting room, where I stayed for the entire day. I had my scans and blood tests there—everything was based in that room. It was only the next evening that I managed to get a bed on an acute unit, so I spent 24 hours in effectively what we would call a corridor. The next day I had an MRI scan and then went to see a neurologist and a stroke team. Let me be absolutely clear: I do not blame the hospital or the staff. They were professional and compassionate throughout. But they are working under chronic pressure in a system that simply does not have the space or the beds to care for patients as they would wish. The first official NHS England data on corridor care published last month showed that in the Royal Bolton hospital, an average of 13 patients a day were treated in corridor spaces in May. I welcome the honesty of the trust’s chief nursing officer, who said that even one patient cared for in this way is far too many, and I commend the trust’s commitment to eliminate the practice ahead of the national timescale. Bolton is not an outlier; it reflects a national emergency across the United Kingdom. About 2,200 patients experienced corridor care on any day in the month of May, while many hundreds were treated in unsuitable spaces. Nearly 148,000 patients waited 12 hours or more in A&E in that month—the worst record in May. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine warns that the official figure may still understate the true scale. This is not just undignified; it is deadly. The Royal College estimates that in 2025 alone, over 15,800 excess deaths were associated with long waits in emergency departments. The Uncorked—Understanding escalation area and corridor care in UK emergency departments—study found that corridor care leads to longer hospital stays and a greater risk of death. There are many reasons for the delay, and many of them have been mentioned. Bed occupancy is running at 93%, far above the safe level of 85%, while some 13,000 beds are occupied by patients who are medically fit to leave but cannot be discharged for want of social and community care. I know that the Government have spent a lot of money on the NHS, such as ending the doctors’ dispute, but will they make a full commitment to ensure that corridor care does not occur in our country and that no patient in Bolton and Walkden, or anywhere else in the United Kingdom, spends a day of acute illness on a chair in a waiting room? The staff of our NHS deserve better, as do our constituents.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement regarding the safety of our children online. I am grateful to the young people of Bolton South and Walkden who have shared their views with me. Children should obviously not be an afterthought at the implementation stage, so will the Secretary of State confirm that their voices have genuinely shaped the decision? Will she also assure the House that when these measures are implemented, children will remain at front and centre as the architects of their own online world?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I find it remarkable that the Conservatives have raised this urgent question, given that under their watch, real-terms defence spending fell by 22% and their own former Defence Secretary admitted that they had left our armed forces “hollowed out and underfunded”. We should also reject the framing of this debate. Pitting welfare against security is divisive and corrosive, and we should call it out for what it is. This Government are already spending £62.2 billion on defence this year, rising to £73.5 billion by 2028-29. Can the Secretary of State confirm that when the defence investment plan is published, it will maximise spending with British industries so that every pound spent also strengthens—

• 15 Jun 2026 · NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  I am proud to speak in this debate. I declare that I co-chair the all-parliamentary group on dentistry and oral health. I have been working on this issue for the best part of a decade, raising it with Ministers in the previous Government, and I have to say that the scale of the challenge that this Government inherited is nothing short of a national scandal. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken: the 700,000 additional urgent appointments; the broadening of that definition in February; and the 1.8 million extra treatments delivered in just seven months. These are real achievements, and I pay tribute to the Minister, whom I have always found to be accessible. He and I have had a number of discussions, and I know that he is not just sympathetic to the issue, but very keen to resolve it. However, as he knows, although these steps are welcome, they are just a sticking plaster on a wound that runs very deep. Almost 14 million people in this country could not access NHS dental care in early 2025—that is more than one in four adults in England, and more than three times as many as before the pandemic. These are not statistics; they are people in pain, people who cannot eat properly and people who are even embarrassed to smile. The British Dental Association’s research tells us that 41% of adults now have tooth decay—levels that have not been seen since the 1990s, undoing decades of hard-won progress in oral health. Polling from Ipsos makes for truly shocking reading: people across this country who cannot get an NHS appointment have been forced to pull their own teeth out. In one of the wealthiest nations in the world, that is just not acceptable. How did we get here? Since 2010, the proportion of the NHS budget spent on dentistry has more than halved, from 3.3% to just 1.5%. That is the direct result of 14 years of the previous Government—£1 billion gone, and patient charges hiked by over two thirds. In 2023, the Health and Social Care Committee branded the dental contract “not fit for purpose”; both the Public Accounts Committee and the Nuffield Trust have said the same. Yet the previous Government for 14 years did nothing about it. After the Tory Government recovery plan was found by the National Audit Office to be off track, this Government have tried to change things. The new patient premium cost £88 million, but produced no measurable improvement in access. Just last week, we learned that despite the offer of a £20,000 golden hello, just two dentists in Greater Manchester signed up to do NHS work. That tells us how broken our system is. I want to raise a specific injustice that was brought to my attention by the Epilepsy Society. Around 630,000 people in this country have epilepsy. A third have uncontrolled seizures and fall without warning, often face-first, breaking their teeth again and again. Harriet, who is 29 years old, has six missing teeth, including her front teeth—top and bottom. After she broke her NHS dentures three times in a single year, her dentist has refused to issue another set. She can barely speak clearly, she struggles to eat, and every time a seizure strikes she faces a new bill for the damage she could not possibly prevent. A broken arm caused by a seizure is treated free in hospital; a broken tooth caused by that same seizure incurs significant expenditure. There is no medical exemption for epilepsy-related dental damage, but there should be. I urge the Minister to look specifically at that in the short term before going on to the full dental contract. What is the cost of fixing it, and why do we need it? The British Dental Association estimated that it would take about £1.5 billion a year to restore NHS dentistry to a universal service. When the Chancellor announced £29 billion for the NHS in her statement on the spending review, I asked her whether any of that money could be set aside for dentistry. Sadly, it has not been, and no additional money has been set out for dentistry. Catching decay early is far cheaper than an emergency treatment, prevention in children costs a fraction of what we spend fixing the damage in adults and a workforce who stay in the NHS are definitely cheaper than one who walk away. We need a new contract that breaks decisively with units of dental activity, prioritises prevention and makes NHS dentistry a place where talented professionals want to build their careers. The Government have announced a public consultation for this summer, which is great news, but we need a timetable and a firm deadline for a new system in this Parliament. We cannot kick this into the long grass again—13 years of that was quite enough. As I said, I have been raising these issues for years. I sat in rooms with Ministers and heard warm words but found nothing changed. I do believe that this Government are different and that the Minister is serious—I have had many discussions with him, and he has met the all-party parliamentary group on dentistry and oral health a number of times—but that seriousness must be matched with urgency, and that urgency must be matched with investment. The people of Bolton South and Walkden and people across the country deserve to see a dentist without waiting years and without pulling their own teeth. They deserve a Government who will finally fix NHS dentistry. I urge the Minister to please urge the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to give it the utmost priority. Let us resolve it once and for all.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Israeli Ministers have reconfirmed what we have all known: it is their intention to settle Jewish settlers in southern Lebanon, as they have done in the west bank and are doing in Gaza. The E1 project will bury the idea of a Palestinian state forever. This is something that many of us have known for a long time, and we are seeing—in real time—ethnic cleansing and war crimes being committed as part of the greater Israel project. This Sunday, there will be a real estate event on UK soil that will openly sell land in the illegal west bank settlement. It is really sad that the shadow Foreign Secretary talked a lot about Iran but did not have a word of sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. Can we please put an outright ban on trade with settlements, stop selling arms to Israel and strengthen the International Court of Justice? Its judges are routinely being threatened by the US Administration.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will withdraw new clause 2, because I know that the Minister is addressing the issue and I accept her commitment. She is an honourable lady and I accept her word, and I look forward to the specialist courts being implemented very soon. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. New clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), would address cases in which the prosecutions need to start a second or third time. It would reclassify offences and move the threshold of offences that are in the Crown court to summary offences. It would increase the maximum possible sentence reduction on a guilty plea to two fifths, remove the restriction that means the highest reduction is available only for early-stage guilty pleas, allow the defendant to receive that reduction even if they plead guilty later in the process, and extend eligibility so that the reduction can also apply before a retrial. The new clause would build on the huge successes of the Liverpool model and Operation Expedite—which was praised by Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts—in bringing down court backlogs. Those successes were largely based on a focus on pre-trial negotiation or plea bargains to avoid cases going to a trial and taking up court time. The new clause is in tune with the Government’s recent announcement following the review carried out by the former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, which looked at trying to avoid giving people a sentence of less than one year because of the disruptive nature of those sentences. The Government could accept the new clause as part of the process of trying to prevent a backlog. It would also allow people to plead guilty, which would be better for victims, complainants, witnesses and the court system.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 2 Specialists courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases “(1) The Lord Chancellor must by regulations establish specialist courts for cases relating to sexual offences and domestic abuse. (2) Any case heard in a court established under subsection (1) must be conducted with a jury and specialist judge. (3) Additional guidance or directions may be formulated by the judiciary in relation to— (a) the nature and dynamics of behaviour including— (i) coercive control, and (ii) honour-based abuse; (b) best practice in hearing cases involving violence against women and girls, including ensuring fair and trauma-informed proceedings. (4) Regulations under this section must make provision for such courts to have specialist facilities for alleged victims. (5) The Lord Chancellor must take reasonable steps for any necessary resources for judicial, administrative and legal support, including advisors, prosecution and defence, to be made available to operate such courts. (6) Any case heard by a court established under subsection (1) must be subject to such considerations regarding— (a) time limits for case preparation, (b) fixed dates for trial, and (c) third party material review and disclosure, as the Lord Chancellor may by regulations specify. (7) Regulations under this section must include provision for the prioritised listing and progression of hearings and trials for such cases in such specialist courts, including the prioritisation of cases where the defendant is on bail. (8) Regulations in this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”— (Yasmin Qureshi.) This new clause would establish specialist courts for sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, with those cases heard by a specialist judge and a jury. It makes further provision including for victim support, and to prioritise cases where a defendant is bailed. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Courts and Tribunals Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of new clause 2, which was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). On Second Reading, my hon. Friend made one of the most powerful contributions the House has heard in recent memory. She spoke from her own experience as a victim of rape and made a point that deserves to be heard again in this Committee. She said that the experiences of victims are being “weaponised” and used as a rhetorical cover for reforms that do not deliver anything meaningful for those victims. My hon. Friend also said something that goes to the heart of this debate: we promised specialist rape courts in our manifesto. The Bill does not deliver them. That observation raises a wider question for the Committee, as we consider new clause 2, about the manifesto commitment and what the Bill does instead. The Labour manifesto made a clear commitment to establish specialist courts for rape and sexual offences and for domestic abuse. That commitment existed because we recognised that the system was failing victims, not because of juries but because of how cases were being managed—the delays, lack of court capacity, the way evidence is handled and the limited support available to those giving evidence. New clause 2 is the legislative delivery of that manifesto commitment. It would not require us to restrict jury trials or accept a reform the benefits of which may, according to the Institute for Government, amount to as little as a 1% to 2% reduction in delays—a reduction the Bar Council considers optimistic. Instead, it would require us to build something that is already proven to work. What works and what does not work? On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North pointed to the work already under way at Liverpool and Preston Crown courts. That work is reducing waiting times for complainants and defendants—we are talking about months, not years—without removing anyone’s right to be tried by a jury. That is the model, that is what we should be scaling, and that is what the new clause would require the Lord Chancellor to do. Instead, the Government have brought forward reforms that will not take effect until 2028 or 2029. A victim who reports a rape today will wait through years under the existing system before a single one of the Bill’s provisions affects their case. We are being asked to accept a permanent reduction in defendants’ rights in exchange for a speculative and delayed improvement in victims’ experience. That is not a serious offer. Let us be clear what the Bill does not do. It will not improve how evidence is handled, how cases are managed or how victims are supported through the process. It will not guarantee timely disclosure, it will not ensure fixed trial dates, it will not provide independent sexual violence advisers where they are needed, it will not reform the conduct of cross-examination, and it will not address wider support or compensation issues. All of those things, which the violence against women and girls sector and Rape Crisis England and Wales have consistently called for, remain untouched. As my hon. Friend said on Second Reading, we should not claim that the Bill delivers justice for victims unless it actually does. The Bill will not do that. New clause 2 would take a different approach. It would preserve jury involvement in every case while introducing a specialist court designed to deal properly with sexual offences and domestic abuse. Each case would be heard by a jury and a specialist judge with training in coercive control, trauma responses, honour-based abuse and best practice in cases involving violence against women and girls. That combination matters. A specialist judge improves the management of proceedings. A jury brings the collective judgment and diversity of the public. As the Lammy review found, juries are far more diverse than the judiciary, and there is no evidence that jury verdicts are affected by the ethnicity of the defendant. By contrast, the removal of juries risks undermining confidence, particularly among victims from minority backgrounds or people from poorer working-class backgrounds. To address the real causes of delay, we ask that strict time limits for case preparation are set. We ask for fixed and reliable trial dates; the proper management of disclosure and third-party material; the prioritised listing of cases, including those of defendants who are on bail; specialist facilities for victims; and the adequate resourcing of judicial, administrative and legal support, including independent sexual violence advisers. These practical reforms would make a material difference to how cases are handled and to the experience of the victim, and they can be done quite quickly. The Government have relied heavily on the experience of victims to justify the reforms, so they should support new clause 2, which would deliver on our manifesto commitment. It is based on a model that already works well. It would improve things for victims without removing fundamental safeguards and does not ask victims to wait until the end of the decade to see any benefit. The Government have identified a real problem but, with respect, have chosen the wrong solution. If the Bill was truly about delivering justice for victims of rape and sexual violence, we would not be debating the restriction of jury trial; we would be implementing the specialist courts we promised. The Bill does not do that. I ask the Government to consider the new clause; otherwise, it will be a missed opportunity. I commend the new clause to the Committee.