Apsana Begum
MP for Poplar and Limehouse · Labour · United Kingdom
“We are still waiting to learn the full extent of British military involvement in this conflict. The Minister must confirm whether the UK’s authorisation for the US to use British airbases continued as the ceasefire has collapsed.”
“Yinon Levi runs an earthworks and construction company that enables the construction of new illegal settlement outposts and uses its heavy machinery to destroy Palestinian infrastructure, including pipes and powerlines.”
“I am relieved that, ahead of the summer recess, the Government have not brought back to the House their controversial proposals to curtail jury trials, which I opposed on Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.”
“One year ago this month, Awdah Hathaleen, a resident of Umm al-Khair, who was a consultant on Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land” and who I and others in this House met during his visit to Parliament in 2024, was murdered by the settler Yinon Levi.”
“Many of my constituents, including those already suffering the devastating consequences of the cuts to the health component of universal credit, are following the work of the Timms review closely and with trepidation.”
“It is Muslim Climate Action Week, and mosques, youth groups and community organisations are coming together to explore environmental action through the lens of Islam, in a campaign that has been led by the charity Islamic Relief since 2024.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Apsana Begum, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“Given that Morgan McSweeney’s name has been copied into so many messages, these disclosures show the need for us to return to the role of Labour Together. Can the Minister tell us whether any third-party redactions relate to any figures associated with Labour Together and, now that its former director has left his seat in this place, will he also tell us when we can expect a full and independent investigation of its activities?”
“More incrementalism sends a message to the British people that the Government do not understand what has gone wrong, because this country and its economy are not working for millions of people, and that demands transformative action.”
“The Prime Minister claimed yesterday that the King’s Speech “will tear down the status quo”. —[ Official Report , 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 22.] The risk here is that disillusionment has begun to settle in. I believe there needs to be less talk of delivery and missions and more talk about how the Government will truly rebalance power and address inequality in the interests of workers and working-class people in this country. The Government must be louder and bolder, but in a vastly different political direction. That must mean showing up as a Government who take people’s material concerns seriously and addressing those concerns in line with the Labour values that they were founded on.”
“That is set against a backdrop of rising wealth in the financial sector and the encroaching City of London in the west, and the ever-expanding Canary Wharf real estate. It is why many of my constituents are concerned about what the legacy and future of the Billingsgate market site in my constituency could be. Could it provide genuinely affordable homes, or could it lead to more luxury flats being built that will drive local people, including families, out of our area? Likewise, many of my constituents who are struggling in the cost of living crisis are interested to know what the Government’s discussions with the financial giant J.P. Morgan will end up meaning for our area and whether decisions are being driven in the interests of local people and for the longevity of our area.”
“I have been looking closely at the social housing Bill, and I welcome its provisions and measures to protect tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse—something the sector has long been campaigning for. However, we will be looking at such measures closely because they need to work in practice, and I remain concerned about the Bill more widely. Can it truly provide the solutions needed to solve the housing crisis without ensuring a commitment to a mass social housing building programme and rent controls? My east London constituency has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the entire country. We have people living in uninhabitable and overcrowded homes that are also not affordable.”
“That principle was an ironclad manifesto commitment, yet we have seen a return to private finance initiatives in the NHS—the same initiatives that have had disastrous consequences in constituencies such as mine in east London. Doctors themselves are resisting controversial Government decisions to sign partnerships with Palantir, and along with that, the agreement last year to appease Donald Trump will strip away National Institute for Health and Care Excellence medicine price controls, and lock in higher drug prices, doubling NHS spend on new medicines, and diverting funds from other vital NHS functions. That will only serve to benefit American big pharma. Private interests should never line their pockets at the expense of our society’s health, not least under a Labour Government. The economy must also work to resolve the housing crisis.”
“However, it presents nationalisation almost as a move of last resort, after private interests have extracted all the profits they can from privatised industries. Why can we not have a conversation about nationalisation in the public good? When we are seeing the dire, shameful way that the private water industry is being mismanaged, a new water ombudsman in the clean water Bill is not enough to meet the scale of the problem. If they have the political will, the Government can meet the public support and demand for public ownership for mail, rail, water and gas, and end the disastrous experiments with privatisation. I reaffirm my commitment to a publicly owned and run NHS that provides free and funded healthcare for all.”
“I am clear about what my role must be, who elected me, and who I am here to represent, and I cannot in my conscience allow the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled to be exposed to any further brutality. If there is no money for disabled people not to be further punished through the welfare system, then the money must be found. If the way our economy is run means that large scale human suffering and wasted potential is unavoidable, it is up to the Government to change the way the economy is run. The King’s Speech proposed a step forward towards the nationalisation of British Steel. I welcome that intention, just as I welcomed the first steps towards the nationalisation of railways in the last Session.”
“That is why I call for the overall benefit cap to be lifted in full; the lifting of the two-child limit alone still leaves thousands of families excluded and trapped in poverty. I appeal to the Government to ensure that there are no further attacks on the rights of disabled people in the UK. The Timms review is due to report in autumn, and I am obliged to make it clear for my constituents, many of whom are already impacted by cuts to the health component of universal credit, that any further attempts to restrict or cut personal independence payments would be disastrous and have to be dropped. If they are not dropped, at bare minimum there must be a full parliamentary vote. Surely the greatest duty of any Government must be to protect and empower the most vulnerable people in our society and deliver social good, not social harm.”
“In that context, people simply do not believe that they must continue to endure more hardship for any longer. I have said before that everything has to be costed and nothing is free in the purest sense, but the fact is that we are a relatively wealthy country and the resources are there in some form. They could be raised, for example, by ensuring that big business and the wealthy pay their fair share. If the wealthiest 1% in this country were taxed just a modest 1% more, it would raise £25 billion and leave more after. It is a question of priorities, political choices and in whose interests decisions are made. I find myself asking again and again, “If there is not enough money, what is the plan to make sure that there is?” Why does austerity still have to be the political choice?”
“My constituents and I refuse to accept that poverty and inequality have to be a normal part of our society and that nothing can be done about it. That is not why I came into politics. It is true that the stark disregard for human suffering displayed by the Conservative Government will never, ever be forgotten. They drove people into poverty then punished them for being poor. They pursued the vulnerable and persecuted the disabled. That is why people have been desperate for real change. It is also true, however, that the United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world and London is the fifth wealthiest city in the world. The richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70% of the population, and the UK’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than 50% of our population.”
“We have seen policies that the British public rejected just last week, such as the changes to indefinite leave to remain and, of course, the continued failure to take meaningful action against the genocide in Gaza. We have also seen the targeting of refugees and migrants, and the provisions of the immigration and asylum Bill are incredibly alarming. The direction of travel in policy means that the Government are now left facing existential questions about what the Labour party stands for, who it stands for and why. The Government said in response to their losses last week that there needs to be a faster and quicker shift, but in the same direction. I want to be clear that this is not what my constituents want.”
“In 2024, the British people, including so many of my constituents, voted for change. After a decade of brutal austerity, they desperately needed a drastic and material improvement in their living standards. The last King’s Speech championed measures that have the potential to radically change the situation for people, from renters’ rights to employment rights and more. I am pleased that this King’s Speech brings forward the Government’s commitments to end conversion practices and to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. Yet we are not seeing the transformative agenda that the country has been crying out for and that people who have always supported Labour want. We have seen policy U-turns, from winter fuel allowance to the lifting of the two-child limit, following significant political and public pressure.”
“In December 2024, the Prime Minister said in announcing Peter Mandelson as US ambassador that he had “unrivalled experience”. That was despite the gravity of what was known about Peter Mandelson’s record and available publicly. Is it not the case that Peter Mandelson’s political appointment, which was personally decided by the Prime Minister and announced in public before the security vetting was completed, needed to progress and had to happen—however it happened—because of Mandelson’s role in the Prime Minister’s own leadership campaign and because it served the interests of one particular faction in the Labour party?”
“This Bill draws another line in the sand between those who benefit from the political establishment and those who wish to challenge it. I am with the protesters, who have my solidarity, because I know which side of history I want to be on.”
“I understand that a defence has been worked in for those concealing their identity at protests for religious purposes, but it is a defence in law, to be proven only after an arrest and during onerous court proceedings. These clauses will only extend the ways in which black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals are over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system. If we believe in democratic values, we must defend the space for protest—loudly and with determination—against attempts to shrink it further. At a time when public trust in political institutions is already incredibly fragile, the Government’s decision to weaken one of the few tools people have to hold power to account is, in my view, irresponsible.”
“British democracy has been defined by dissent, and social progression has been achieved by diverse groups mobilising for women’s rights, for LGBTQ+ equality, for workers’ rights, and for solidarity across those causes. I reiterate my opposition to clauses 156 and 158, which deal with wearing or using items to conceal identity at protests. There has not been a fundamental assessment or full clarity about how making “wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals” a person’s “identity or another person’s identity” an offence, as the Bill states, will work in practice. For example, how will it work for Muslim women who observe hijab or niqab?”
“In this context, it is absurd that under these proposals, holding repeated protests could justify far-reaching restrictions and even outright bans. Where does this lead? Trade unions are asking whether picketing during an industrial dispute would make them vulnerable to heavy-handed interventions. I understand that the Government are supporting Lords amendment 312; I oppose it entirely, and will instead be supporting a motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) to disagree with amendment 312. This assault on the right to protest could lead us down an extremely worrying path, where Governments can become totalitarian and are able to silence whomever they choose.”
“The UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has recently outlined how far out of step this extraordinary expansion of state power is with international norms. This Bill and Lords amendment 312 exist in the context of one of the largest and most sustained protest movements in modern British political history. The Home Secretary has not obscured the fact that these proposals are a direct response to the demonstrations for Palestine. Indeed, I have been proud to protest alongside hundreds and thousands of constituents in over 30 major national demonstrations demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza—collective actions to stand up for humanity in the face of the gravest acts of inhumanity.”
“This makes the shambolic process by which these proposals have been brought before the House even more disturbing. The Bill proposes giving the police even more powers, including to decide where, when, and even whether a protest takes place. At this very late stage, the other place has now proposed amendment 312, which could lead to protests being not just restricted, but banned outright. That should alarm anyone who cares about democracy, because it should not need pointing out that the whole point of protests is that they are supposed to have a cumulative impact. Should the suffragettes or the Chartists have given up after just one attempt?”
“The right to protest is a basic democratic freedom that was won over centuries of British history. It is not a right that was granted, but one that was hard-won by suffragettes, trade unionists, anti-fascists and many others. Today we are focusing only on the Lords amendments, but I place on record that this Bill is a serious and substantial assault on our democratic freedoms. Indeed, before the Bill was introduced to this House, the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Public Order Act 2023, and many other anti-protest Bills passed under the last Government had already expanded police powers. Those Bills were widely criticised by legal experts and civil society organisations and faced widespread opposition from Members from across the House.”
“I note what the Minister has just said—she said the same to our hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—that she derives the assessment of cumulative disruption from the Public Order Act 1986, in that the police must, rather than can, consider cumulative disruption. However, the definition of “cumulative” does not exist in the law as it stands; indeed, the bulk of the text of amendment 312 creates a definition of “cumulative disruption”. Will the Minister clarify where else in the law does that definition already exist, because it is not in the Public Order Act?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way once again. Because it is Lords amendments, I want to get full clarity on the definition of cumulative. She mentioned the natural definition of cumulative. If I may borrow the example given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who actually was interviewed under caution for laying flowers for dead children just over a year ago, would it be seen as unnatural or natural if he were to lay down in front of Heathrow runway? What would happen? Is it the expectation that the police would determine what is cumulative, as the Minister said it would be the natural definition?”
“The House has repeatedly been told that the Government have permitted the US to use British military bases for defensive purposes only, but amid the widespread US targeting of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including schools, hospitals and bridges, we have not been told how those restrictions work in practice. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether US military aircraft have taken off from RAF Fairford or Lakenheath carrying heavy munition payloads? If they have, is there any US operational policy for action from our bases in place that has been approved by this Government? If not, is it the case that the working definition of defensive action is simply, “Don’t ask, don’t tell”?”
“Under international law, the use of force is permitted for “individual or collective self-defence” against “an armed attack”. Such use of force must satisfy the requirements of proportionality and necessity. In light of the broadening use of British military bases at the request of Donald Trump over the past week, will the Defence Secretary clarify for the British public how this satisfies those requirements? If the lessons of Iraq are to be learned, surely he must understand that the British public will not accept anything other than a parliamentary debate and vote on any further British military involvement.”
“We have a profound duty to those who elect us regarding the scrutiny of legislation. This week, the other place has been debating the Crime and Policing Bill, which is wide in scope and raises several concerns of the utmost importance to our constituents. Will the Leader of the House clarify how long Members will have to properly debate and vote on Lords amendments on a new category of extreme criminal protest groups, as well as Government new clauses on so-called cumulative disruption and face coverings, which have profound equalities implications? Will he assure us that timetabling pressures before the end of this parliamentary Session will not prevent proper scrutiny and consideration of this serious and substantive Bill?”
“I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Is he concerned, like me, about what the reforms will mean for the survivors of abuse who have fled persecution abroad? Does he agree that perpetrators already weaponise immigration status against their victims, and that removing refugee protection will lead only to survivors having even less access to support and being too scared of deportation to leave?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need urgently—today—to provide clarity on those constituents, perhaps of his and certainly of mine, who came through the European Community association agreement route and have had applications for renewals and other elements paused since November 2025? They are now in complete limbo, although they are eligible as of this month to apply for indefinite leave to remain.”
“On danger and protections, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must maintain the existing protections for survivors of domestic violence who have fled persecution and violence abroad, including the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession and the domestic violence ILR protection?”
“Aside from the response to the Humble Address, 90 Members from parties across the House are calling for an independent statutory inquiry into the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and British public figures and institutions, including whether due diligence was undertaken in the case of any appointments to public roles. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position to support such calls and establish an inquiry? If not, can he confirm that there is no influence from Labour Together on such a position?”
“The Minister for Safeguarding has positively engaged with us in that regard, and is also delivering on other commitments. However, I am concerned about the Government’s wider programme of austerity; the real-terms cuts to benefits, including the retention of the overall benefit cap and the freezing of the local housing allowance; and the continued injustice of the WASPI women’s lack of compensation. I am also concerned about the ongoing assaults on civil liberties, which target those who are most at risk: minoritised and migrant women, including those from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I hope that, going forward, the Government can address the areas in which migrant and minoritised women need our support.”
“As we approach the fifth anniversary of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 next month, this could not be more important, because we in the VAWG sector know that the weaponisation of violence against women and girls by far-right groups and political parties such as Reform harms survivors and ultimately impedes the real work of tackling the root causes of society-wide violence, to the detriment of women and girls. It has resulted in women fleeing persecution abroad facing even more danger here, including being targeting at hotels over the past year. The Government have an ambitious commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and our APPG welcomes measures in the VAWG strategy to try to achieve that, including the overarching, cross-departmental approach and the focus on prevention.”
“In the light of the Mandelson scandal, we need an independent statutory inquiry into all of Jeffrey Epstein’s links to British institutions and figures, which I—along with over 70 Members of this House—continue to call for. I also believe we need an independent investigation into the activities of Labour Together. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I am delighted to be working with Women’s Aid to ensure that no survivor is left behind.”
“I am intrigued by today’s announcement of a new unit to look into intimidation experienced during elections, given that my ex-husband stood against me at the last general election with the stated aim of trying to “set the record straight”, after everything I had already endured. I will look at ways to contribute constructively to the Government’s work in this regard, because this is not just about me. No survivor of domestic abuse should be prevented from standing for office or staying in public life, having fled abuse or because they experience post-separation harassment. We need to ensure that this place sends the right message to our country.”
“To this day, I still have women from across the country reaching out in support, and I continue to work with Members from across the House to call on all political parties to ensure that political representatives who are survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment in their roles. I also continue to call and campaign for better protections in the workplace more widely, from paid leave for domestic abuse to mandatory policies on domestic abuse in every workplace, to eliminate domestic abuse in our society, because that requires a whole-society approach.”
“Four years ago, I faced a reselection process in which numerous complaints were made about rule-breaking and misogynistic intimidation, a process marred by the involvement of my ex-husband and his associates. As many Members will be aware, I was subsequently signed off sick from work. Although activists and organisations in the domestic abuse sector expressed alarm at my treatment, and my independent domestic violence advocate made representations on my behalf, the matter remains unresolved. The post-separation harassment and the institutional gaslighting and silencing goes on and on. What I am reminded of by my lived experience is that domestic abuse can impact people from all walks of life and in all forms of employment, including those of us in public life.”
“Ahead of the UN International Day to Combat Islamophobia this weekend, I am all too aware of how Muslim women are among the most economically disadvantaged faith groups in the UK, impacted by the prevalence of negative stereotypes, harassment and hate crimes. The increased overlap of working and caring responsibilities has added to the ongoing reality that caring continues to be a major factor in women’s ability to participate on equal terms. Put simply, women still face structural economic inequality throughout their lives, which intersects with other structures of inequality, including race and disability. We also know that violence against women, including trans women, continues to blight our society. I know personally that the impact of domestic abuse on the physical and mental health of survivors can be devastating.”
“Today’s debate comes as the cost of living crisis continues to foster a sense of injustice, uncertainty and anxiety across the UK, set against a brutal backdrop of more than a decade of Conservative austerity and chronic under-investment in public services, which were left hollowed out and, in many instances, privatised by the last Government. The cost of living crisis has meant that women are more likely than men to lose their jobs or reduce their paid work, given that they are more frequently employed in sectors that have been directly disrupted by austerity measures and impacted by cuts and under-investment in public services. Women, particularly black, Asian and minority ethnic women, continue to account for around two thirds of low earners, and they are more likely to be working on zero-hours contracts or part-time contracts.”
“I will do my very best, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate Members on their contributions to the debate so far. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) on a very impassioned first speech about the rich traditions in her constituency of standing in unity and for humanity against attempts to divide. It has been six years since I delivered my first speech in Parliament during a similar debate on International Women’s Day, in which I paid tribute to our local history of women’s struggles for social justice, which continue to be daily sources of inspiration.”
“As the Criminal Bar Association has highlighted, over 78% of barristers have said that it is important for juries to be able to evaluate complex evidence and prevent overreach in financial and fraud cases. In my case, the jury considered evidence over eight days—that was necessary, in my view.”
“Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries—including all white juries—do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants…This positive story about the jury system is not matched by such a clear-cut story for magistrates’ verdicts… In particular, there were some worrying disparities for BAME women… Of those women tried at Magistrates’ Court, Black women, Asian women, Mixed ethnic women and Chinese/Other women were all more likely to be convicted than White women.” The Bill will entrench structural discrimination, and I believe that Justice Secretary knows it. Indeed, I am also alarmed by the proposals to introduce trial by judge for some financial and fraud cases.”
“Of course, they want reform of the criminal justice system, but they want it to be evidence-led. The value and importance of a jury system cannot be overstated. The House will be aware that I was cleared by a jury in 2021 after a vexatious trial driven by malicious intent. Originally, my case was set to be heard in a magistrates court. I am not saying that that would have led to a different outcome for sure, but for someone of my background—working class, Muslim, and a woman of Bangladeshi heritage—the risk of a miscarriage of justice would have been much higher, without a shadow of a doubt. Back in 2017, the now Justice Secretary said in his report: “Juries are a success story of our justice system.”
“They do acknowledge, like many of us, that the Bill contains some good provisions, including the repeal of the presumption of child contact, which has been long campaigned for by many of us in this House and by organisations such as Women’s Aid and Right to Equality, and led by the incredible Claire Throssell, who joins us in the Special Gallery. The Bill will also make transcripts available from the magistrates court, which has been long campaigned for by Charlotte and the team at Open Justice for All, among others, and supported by many of us in this House. However, on the curtailment of jury trials, I have spoken with many rape victims who feel that their trauma is being instrumentalised to undermine and restrict a fundamental cornerstone of our democracy—all for cost-cutting purposes.”
“No one is denying that after 14 years of desecration by the Conservatives, the backlog in the Crown courts is out of control and stacked against victims, but curtailing jury trials is not necessary to tackle it. There is no evidence that these plans will fix the problems in our criminal justice system, and the Institute for Government has suggested that restricting juries could save less than 2% of court time. It is no wonder, then, that thousands of lawyers have written to the Government to oppose these plans.”
“Instead of restricting jury trials, I urge them to invest in and properly fund our criminal justice system in order to address the issue of court backlogs. Everyone—every single one of us—should have equal rights in our legal and court systems. Jury trials are a fundamental legal safeguard against miscarriages of justice, and surely our society should be based on true fairness in the course of delivering justice.”
“My hon. Friend highlights important and vital statistics that illustrate an issue in the legal system: it does not reflect the wider diversity of communities who experience and go through the criminal justice system. The majority of women in prison are survivors of violence against women and girls; nearly 70% of women in prison report having experienced domestic abuse. They are more likely to have been tried in a magistrates court for either-way offences that could have been considered by a jury. I am very worried that the proposals in the Bill will result in more victims being jailed. This really matters. Three-year prison terms are life-altering sentences, but under the Bill they could be handed out by a judge. The Government have no mandate for a decision of such magnitude—it was not in the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto.”
“A constituent who fled Iran fought back tears as she told me that she wanted an end to the regime in Iran that had targeted her and her loved ones. She also said that she wanted absolutely no illegal military intervention from external forces. Does the Prime Minister understand that enabling the use of military bases by the Government’s allies—in this case, the US—and Israel’s illegal actions are dragging our country into a wider conflict, but that the Government have no power to determine the conflict’s outcome, and that that risks making us all more, not less, safe?”
“The Minister mentioned the deadline for the deregistration of NGOs. If that deadline passes and there has not been a change of direction from the Israeli authorities and Government, what concrete steps will the UK Government take?”
“I have been working with leasehold groups in my constituency such as the aptly named Friends in High Places group. They inform me that the combined costs of the Building Safety Regulator’s fees, the purchasing of reports and various surveys, and the remediation works needed are giving rise to potentially enormous bills, which could lead to leaseholders becoming bankrupt and homeless, as the bills are not picked up by developers or freeholders for older buildings, or resident management companies. Will the Minister outline how upcoming legislation will clarify what counts as proportionate and/or reasonable costs that fall on to leaseholders in relation to the BSR’s work?”
“The severity of the allegations against Labour Together cannot go unaddressed. The Minister says of the referral to the independent adviser that it would then be for the Prime Minister to decide, but given that the Prime Minister’s own Labour leadership campaign in 2020 was supported by Labour Together, does the Minister feel that that would be appropriate? And what of the allegations against Labour Together beyond the role of the one Cabinet Office Minister? Who will investigate those allegations? As the Minister referred some weeks ago to a spirit of transparency and accountability following what we have heard of the role of Peter Mandelson, does he not want to see transparency and accountability more widely on the allegations around Labour Together?”