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 6 of 13.
“The horrors that continue to unfold before our eyes mean that we are being changed forever, but it has been made very clear that UK and US foreign policy interests are being pursued with an utter disregard for Palestinian life. It is chilling, and the complicity will never, ever be forgotten.”
“The lifting of the pause on funding the UNRWA is a welcome step forward, but as we speak, new mass displacement orders will worsen the entire, already dire, situation. I speculate that the Minister will likely assert something along the lines that aid must get to where it is needed in theory, yet everyone is clear that aid is being blocked and hindered by Israel, the UK’s close and staunch ally. The best way we know to ensure that aid is delivered is to secure a ceasefire. It is important that there is an arms embargo, including of F-35 fighter jets, which are being traded to be used against civilians. It has implications for global human rights benchmarks.”
“No matter the brutality of the censorship at home, the silencing or the spin, the inescapable truth is that civilians in Gaza, including large numbers of children, are facing healthcare shortages and diseases. This is what happens when hospitals are targeted and health and sanitation and other infrastructure is wilfully destroyed. My constituents have opposed this, but this is what the UK continues to facilitate. Civilians in Gaza, including large numbers of children, are not only starving, but being starved. This is what happens when food is being prevented from getting to those who need it. Civilians in Gaza, including large numbers of children, are not simply dying; they are being killed.”
“It is just beyond disturbing that so many cannot express a simple condemnation of the type of war being conducted by the Israeli military—the unprecedented death toll, the violence against women and children, the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, the blocking of aid and the weaponisation of starvation. It is just not enough to repeat the lines that Israel must uphold international human rights standards in theory, when it is so clear that they have not and are not doing so, and have effectively been given the go-ahead to continue to not do so. Quite frankly, the UK’s continued support and facilitation of this is absolutely shocking to my constituents, and indeed to the majority of people in the UK.”
“In February this year, I secured and led a debate on the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. During the debate, I quoted Save the Children International’s chief executive officer’s harrowing plea: “We are running out of words to describe the horror unfolding for Gaza’s children.” Eight months later, it is absolutely and utterly devastating to be here again today, and that things have gone from bad to worse. As such, I urge the Government today to refrain from the insult of the usual euphemistic phrasing of speaking of too many civilians being killed or broad references to the humanitarian situation without condemning the actions that are so clearly responsible. This is not about some random natural disaster.”
“It is absolutely clear that aid and aid workers are being hindered and blocked by Israel. At the same time, the UK considers Israel to be one of its closest allies. How does that make sense in terms of how the UK represents itself at the UN and on the world platform? The Minister seems to be suggesting that efforts are being made to secure a ceasefire to provide aid, when it is obvious that there is a block and that the UK is facilitating that, as opposed to opposing it.”
“Building a new generation of social housing, and particularly council housing, is the only true long-term solution to the housing crisis. Campaigners and tenants’ unions have rightly welcomed the Bill. It is an important positive step, and I look forward to engaging with it constructively during its journey through the Commons, because housing is a right, not a commodity.”
“The availability of housing that people can actually afford is key. It is not just that affordable homes are in short supply; they are also, in fact, not affordable. In east London we know that well. People are also concerned about gentrification. It is my strong view, and that of many constituents who have contacted me over the years, that development should be focused on solving the existing housing crisis and driven in the interests of local people. We really need investment in our communities. We need a mass house building programme. We need to be honest about what the private sector can deliver. It makes little sense, if the housing crisis is to be effectively tackled, that for every affordable home —which is not, in fact, affordable—two, three or even more luxury flats continue to be built.”
“It is welcome to see that the Bill will make it illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants in receipt of benefits or with children. My constituents would also have liked to see the Bill end the immigration right-to-rent rules, which are part of the disgraceful hostile environment. Those rules force landlords and agents to check tenants’ immigration status, disproportionately impacting people of colour. One might argue that the level of rent itself is the most discriminatory factor. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and others have mentioned that the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that an effective measure to stop renters being evicted would be rent controls. All too often a 20% rent hike is simply a no-fault eviction under a different name.”
“I welcome this Bill with warmth. It will ban section 21 no-fault evictions for new and existing tenancies and introduce a number of standards for the private rented sector, including—crucially—Awaab’s law. There is no doubt that the no-fault eviction ban is testament to the work of campaigners all over the country, and it has the potential to drastically improve the situation facing private renters. I would like to probe a little bit more about the balance in the Bill, especially regarding the extended possession grounds for landlords to reclaim their properties. Many of us would like to see the new eviction grounds being more favourable to tenants. Will the Minister elaborate on the evidence that landlords will be expected to provide to prove that they are genuinely moving in or selling, so that the provision is not abused?”
“It is with profound sadness that we take stock of the past year in which 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas’s horrific attack and over 41,000 Palestinians and thousands in Lebanon have been killed by the Israeli military onslaught. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that all lives should be cherished—Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese—and that nothing can ever justify the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure? Will he join me in calling for a ceasefire and accountability in the region of the middle east?”
“I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. On the UK’s role, is she aware that in May, the previous UK Government signed a deal with the now deposed Bangladeshi Government about fast-tracking the deportation of Bangladeshi asylum seekers, presumably including those seeking political asylum? Bangladesh was deemed a supposedly safe country. Does she agree that something has clearly been revealed to be wrong here, both with the deportation policy itself and with the UK’s foreign policy objectives?”
“The Foreign Secretary announced that 30 of approximately 350 arms export licences will now be suspended. That is still less than 10% of the total number of arms export licences to Israel. Given that over 40,000 Palestinians have now been killed, Israel is expanding its military operations in the occupied west bank and a Foreign Office official has resigned, stating that “it’s actually quite clear…that…Israel is perpetuating war crimes in plain sight”, will the UK Government ensure that the UK is not complicit in Israel’s war crimes, and will they suspend all arms sales to Israel?”
“For too long, Muslims have been scapegoated for the failings of the political and economic system by the same type of politics that led to the hostile environment for migrants. Can the Home Secretary outline the steps that she will take to ensure that any measures that arise from the rapid review of extremism do not perpetuate or extend harm to the very communities—Muslims and migrants—who have been the primary target of the far right’s violence?”
“Following the high death toll among student protesters, international human rights bodies are reporting further crackdowns on dissent, from mass arrests and enforced disappearances to torture and unlawful killings. Does the Minister agree that Bangladeshi people must have the right to exercise their fundamental human rights, including the right to protest, and will she join me in expressing solidarity with Bangladeshi people facing repression, both in Bangladesh and around the world?”
“It also means—I say this as somebody who campaigned alongside the RMT against ticket office closures—ensuring accessibility and reflecting the needs of a diversity of rail users, including disabled people. And, yes, public rail investment will aid much-needed economic growth. People are absolutely desperate for material change. This Government promised to deliver investment, public ownership and employment rights, and the Bill before the House today is a positive first step towards a fully integrated, publicly owned railway. Our railways exist to support us, and people, not profiteering, should be at the heart of our railways.”
“The negative impact of privatisation is far-reaching, as non-profitable railway lines are discounted, fares are raised above affordability or service quality is compromised. It is no wonder that distrust of the railway industry is rife, and that there has been consistent, long-term consensus for an integrated, publicly owned railway. Compared with privatised railways, a publicly owned railway does not need to be driven to maximise profits through cuts or price hikes. Instead, a publicly owned railway enables transparent costing and sustainable funding. It means public investment in rail services, and properly staffed trains and stations. It means investing in green transport, and creating green jobs that are both socially and economically sustainable.”
“I congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members on delivering their maiden speeches today. I thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate on the Bill, which is widely welcomed by rail trade unions and will ensure that train services will be brought under public ownership as private companies’ existing contracts expire. Many of us have long campaigned for the renationalisation of our railways, so today marks a hopeful turning point for our transport system. Time and again, privatisation has proven to be a failed imposition that has resulted in fare increases, falling real wages, a declining quality of service, and crisis after crisis in timetabling. At the crux of the privatisation problem has been the pursuit of profit at the expense of the taxpayer, railway workers and passengers.”
“Can the Minister explain how his Government can possibly justify continuing to support a military campaign that has involved the denial of electricity and basic services to civilians; the starving of civilians and the blocking of aid; the bombing of civilian infrastructure; the forced displacement of millions; the killing of journalists and aid workers; and the killing of civilians, including large numbers of children, on an unprecedented scale?”
“In closing, let me place on the record my alarm at this Government’s now fairly frequent tabling of large numbers of amendments on Report, and at the short notice, compressed time for debate and scrutiny, and what many of us experience as utter confusion regarding timetabling. That is a dangerous precedent to set, and it is not in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. I urge the Government to withdraw the extra substantial amendments and allow for the proper, democratic, sensible and transparent scrutiny that our constituents expect of us.”
“There are many questions about impact assessments, and we do not know what the full disabilities and equalities implications will be. For example, Government new clause 96 prohibits wearing or otherwise using an item for “the purpose of concealing…identity” in a locality designated by the police. Before even getting to a fundamental assessment of the measure as a whole, there are many questions and points of clarity that my constituents would want, at the very least, to be publicly established. For example, how will the provision impact Muslim women who wear the hijab or the niqab, because the phrasing refers to using an item “wholly or mainly” for such a purpose?”
“It is no secret that trust in the police is already low, particularly among women, survivors and people from diverse backgrounds. Whatever the different views across the House, surely there is a consensus that measures of such significance, which could have severe and potentially life-changing consequences for our constituents, should not be passed without appropriate scrutiny, and without many of us even knowing of their existence. Accordingly, there has certainly been very little public awareness or debate. As Members of Parliament, we have a profound duty to those who elect us regarding the scrutiny of legislation. This is not only about having a functioning democracy; this is about having workable and functioning laws.”
“Last week there was an absurd situation when we had a deadline for tabling amendments and new clauses, yet we did not know what business the debate would cover. Then, at my last count, 134 Government amendments were tabled virtually at the last minute. Those are not unsubstantial or merely technical amendments, but include measures relating to new offences that would have potentially significant and wider reaching consequences for our civil liberties, and could even result in imprisonment. These measures include further powers for the police to exercise without accountability. I do not need to remind the House that many of our constituents are very worried about the powers that the police already have and how they use them.”
“I rise to speak to the programme motion, which was tabled yesterday shortly before the rise of the House. It relates to the consideration of hundreds of amendments and new clauses to a serious and substantial Bill. Indeed, they relate to some of the most fundamental issues affecting our constituents. Today there is a debate on amendments and new clauses that cover domestic abuse, human trafficking and the transfer of prisoners to foreign prisons, yet the House was made aware of that only yesterday evening. I am sure that Members across the House will have been up late trying their best to prepare, as I was, but my duty to my constituents compels me to place on the record my shock and worry about what this means, not only for parliamentary democracy but for the quality of legislation that will be passed.”
“More than 60 lawyers, campaigners, politicians and academics have written a letter in support of the anti-violence against women and girls campaigner and barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman, who is facing disciplinary action after challenging a judge for taking a “boys’ club attitude” in a ruling on a domestic abuse case. Does the Minister agree that the racial, gender and class-based bias of the justice system must be addressed and that it is right to speak up against injustice? Will she join me in paying tribute to those who are campaigning for a legal sector that genuinely represents, empowers, and is accountable to the wider public?”
“It would be helpful if the Minister could update us on where he thinks people are to flee to. Previously, many of us called for safe routes when Russia invaded Ukraine, and some visa schemes were set up for Ukrainians. How can it be that there are no safe routes for Palestinians to reach sanctuary in the UK, even if they have family here?”
“Thank you for calling me, Mr Vickers. “The plight of Palestine refugees remains the longest unresolved refugee crisis in the world,” according to the United Nations. This was the situation even before the current war on the civilians of Gaza. Through the signatories of the petition today, including a large number of my constituents, the strong feeling in our communities is evident and clear. In Gaza, we are witnessing collective punishment, destruction and displacement of human lives on a horrific and unprecedented scale. Ongoing indiscriminate bombing has turned a chronic humanitarian crisis into a catastrophe. For those who survive, there is an imminent risk of death by disease and starvation. Millions are displaced, but where are they to go? As I speak, there is simply no safe space left for those fleeing from Rafah.”
“I know that many of my constituents have been utterly shocked at the racism, Islamophobia and double standards. Something has been fundamentally broken or revealed, however we look at it.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I hope that the Minister addresses that point in his response. How can it be that there are no safe routes for Palestinians to reach sanctuary in the UK, even if they have family here? In fact, humanitarian visa routes are rarely available to Palestinians in any form, despite one in six of the world’s refugees being Palestinian. I have asked repeatedly in this House why Palestinians are all too often treated differently. The dehumanisation and devaluation of Palestinian life has been stark and, to be totally frank, utterly appalling. History teaches us that a people are dehumanised so that they can be killed, displaced and starved with impunity, and indeed, so that they can be denied assistance and asylum when they are clearly in need.”
“As the Government erode our civil liberties and democratic rights, as they disenfranchise and disempower, and as they attack the very fabric of our communities through austerity, they foster fear and division and they falsely point to migrants as the cause of our alienation. In truth, it is overwhelmingly clear that the global drivers of refugee movements are intrinsically connected to the legacies of colonialism and empire, which live on to this day. There is no doubt the British Government have a responsibility to step up for the people of Gaza fleeing collective punishment, and yet, shamefully, there is no doubt that they are still choosing complicity rather than compassion.”
“Whenever asked about how UK-traded weapons are used, the Government provide pro-forma, general lines about ongoing reviews and the licensing criteria. If those reviews are actually happening, why can we not know what they reveal? Especially now, when those living the reality of this horror are reaching out for support to survive, it is this Government who turn their back on humanity. For some time now, parliamentary political discourse has used migration—even the absolute horror of people dying in the English channel—cynically and as a political tool. It is the age-old phenomena of scaremongering and scapegoating.”
“Like many across the UK and around the world, I have always been opposed to the bombing and displacement of civilians, but this Government have supported it in Gaza. What did they think would happen when they supported the openly declared intent to reduce the entire Gaza strip to rubble? Whenever this Government have been asked about the long-term plan for millions of civilians in Gaza, they have been unable to answer. Instead, it was this Government who withdrew funding from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency shortly after the International Court of Justice’s interim ruling. It is this Government who help to ensure that Israel has the weapons to kill women and children. Indeed, it would be helpful if the Minister could update us today on the latest assessment of whether weapons from the UK have been used to kill children.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend that we are a place of sanctuary, and we welcome refugees. The political establishment has been totally out of touch with the majority of British people on this. That will not be easily forgotten. As young people across east London ask me, how is it that the Government condemn certain countries for their human rights records and crimes, but not others? Why does the right to self-determination seem to be spoken about for some, but not others? Why are some national flags celebrated but others denigrated, or even effectively banned? Why are some deaths mourned and others explained away? Why is it that, for the Government, too many Palestinians have been killed or are starving, but there is no condemnation of those who killed them or are starving them?”
“Friend’s amendment 10 on the definition of “public interest”. It seeks to ensure that the Bill does not privilege certain types of public interest speech and create an unnecessary and problematic hierarchy that could, as I understand it, cut across principles in the Defamation Act 2013 and data protection law, making it harder for defendants to use the full scope of available defences.”
“As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, and having had first-hand experience of how SLAPPs can be used to silence women, I want to ensure that we consider the ability of abusers to weaponise litigation. Back in 2021, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan, warned about gendered censorship taking place around the world. I have also spoken extensively about this issue, and she rightly pointed out that there is currently an imbalance in the system between “his” right to reputation and, usually, “her” right to free speech. Having spoken extensively about defamation and public interest defences in this regard, I think that we should aim to have a future free from perpetrators being able to abuse the courts and pursue litigation in this way. I therefore support my hon.”
“Friend the Member for Caerphilly, which seek to ensure that a court can reach a conclusion about a claimant’s intent based on a reasonable and more objective interpretation of their behaviour, rather than rather than an overly subjective inquiry into their state of mind. That would retain the test of a claimant’s intention while mitigating the threat of complex, costly and lengthy satellite litigation, which has already been discussed. I am concerned that campaigners and experts are warning that without these amendments, there is a risk that this Bill’s early dismissal mechanism could render the legislation redundant.”
“It also has a narrow scope, focusing only on conduct directly related to litigation, which leaves claimants free to continue with much of the pre-litigation conduct, and abusive behaviour conducted in tandem with litigation, that make SLAPPs so egregious and hard to monitor. I am minded to agree with campaigners that it must be clear that claimant behaviour that is intended to harass, alarm and distress, and that harms, is combined with other factors in clause (2)(1)(c) indicative of a SLAPP claim, and that there should be no threshold below which this behaviour is acceptable. Likewise, abusive claimant behaviour prior to and alongside the claim itself should be in scope. I place on the record my support for amendments 2 and 5, which stand in the name of my hon.”
“That is why I remain concerned that the Bill has been drafted with too much focus on attempting to balance competing interests within the legal profession, instead of protecting public participation and the fundamental rights of free expression and access to a fair trial. Indeed, we know that the Government have been heavily lobbied by—and, as has been mentioned, have had substantial input from—the very lawyers who bring SLAPP claims. In particular, colleagues will be aware that the Anti-SLAPP Coalition takes issue with the wording of clause 2(1)(c) because it argues that the wording assumes that there is an acceptable level of “harassment, alarm or distress”, and harm, that a claimant can intentionally inflict on a defendant.”
“I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly for bringing this important Bill to the House and getting it to this stage. Like many colleagues, I was at the first debate on lawfare in January 2022 and I am now most grateful to serve on this Committee. I also thank campaigners for what they are doing to prevent the misuse of litigation to suppress freedom of speech, including the campaign groups and campaigners working against the use of the law to silence survivors of domestic abuse and violence. Democratic and press freedoms are fundamental to our rights and to challenging corruption and the abuse of power.”
“The Minister’s reply on 17 April to my written question referred to wanting “to see Israel take greater care to limit its operations to military targets”. Can he confirm that he is finally aware that Israel has not limited its onslaught to military targets? Given that the Government’s own licensing criteria refer to the “risk that the items might be used to…facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law…or serious acts of violence against women or children”, how can continuing to arm Israel in its bombardment of Palestinian civilians possibly be justified?”
“Humanitarian agencies have concluded that we have passed the point of being able to avert famine in Gaza. Whatever we do now, we will be too late for those people who will have starved to death by the time aid arrives, and that is a stain on the international community. Will the Minister update the House on what specific steps the Government have taken to bring about the full implementation of resolution 2728, which was passed by the UN Security Council over three weeks ago? Pleading with, pressuring and pressing the Israeli Government is clearly not a strategy that is working, so why do the UK Government not recognise that consequences and concrete actions can start with the stopping of arms sales to Israel?”
“The UN Security Council has voted for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza for only the remainder of Ramadan. It is almost two months since the ICJ’s plausible genocide ruling, yet the killing, the destruction and the weaponised starvation go on. Can the Minister outline what conversations he and the Foreign Secretary are having with their counterparts in the United States to ensure that the UN resolution this week is implemented, and will the UK Government cease arming Israel, to ensure that the UK upholds the ICJ’s ruling and its provisional measures?”
“A number of practices are illegal in this country, such as forced marriage, which is something that the LGBTQ community experience, including those who may also go through conversion therapy. That is wrong. Does my hon. Friend agree that the time to tackle that is now? The LGBTQ community have been waiting at least five years since the Government first promised to ban that awful practice.”
“Only an immediate ceasefire can protect civilians and implement the ICJ’s historic plausible genocide ruling. With Ramadan less than 15 days away, aid agencies warn that a ground offensive in Rafah could be catastrophic for the 1.5 million people taking shelter there, including 600,000 children. If the Government only call for an immediate ceasefire if and when a full ground offensive in Rafah begins, what assessment has been made of whether they will have upheld their own obligations under international law, particularly in relation to the ICJ’s provisional measures, including measures around the prevention of genocide?”
“After four separate strikes in seven weeks, this appears to be a prolonged military campaign, so I ask the Minister again, as I did on 5 February: what is the long-term strategy, and how does this relate to the ongoing precarious situation in Yemen itself? If the Government’s plan is to sustain military action, will he speak to the Prime Minister to ensure that Parliament accordingly has a vote or a say, which is only right?”
“I often find myself asking, “If we cannot speak about violence against women and girls, how can we even tackle it?” By their nature, these cases misuse the courts and are brought against survivors to silence them and re-victimise them emotionally and financially. I urge the Government to look at the situation in the family courts, as well as the civil courts. No one should suffer domestic abuse, and anyone in such a situation should be supported in speaking out. It is a matter of public good and public interest.”
“Weaponising the justice system to silence women feeds impunity while also undermining free speech.” In addition, barristers Jennifer Robinson and Dr Yoshida make the argument in their book that the current situation strikes an unfair balance between his right to reputation and her right to freedom of speech. What is missing in the legislation in the UK as it stands is a recognition of the importance of her additional rights: her right to live a life free from gender-based violence and her right to equality. The practice of abusers weaponising civil litigation against survivors is a continuation of abuse, as well as additional trauma.”
“The most common proceedings we see brought are by men accused of sexual misconduct and/or domestic violence launching vexatious cases in relation to defamation, libel, the misuse of private information, harassment and press injunctions. The UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan, writing in a dedicated report on gender censorship in 2021, said: “In a perverse twist in the #MeToo age, women who publicly denounce alleged perpetrators of sexual violence online are increasingly subject to defamation suits or charged with criminal libel or the false reporting of crimes.”
“The House will be aware that I was completely cleared and vindicated in Snaresbrook Crown court after what I and many others in my constituency and around the UK viewed to have been vexatious litigation, pursued with the purpose of shutting down my public participation as a democratically elected socialist Member of Parliament and a survivor of domestic abuse. The use of lawfare by abusers to pursue their current or ex-partner is coming to light more and more. I am aware that the occurrence of civil litigation cases of this nature has drastically increased, particularly following the widely publicised Amber Heard versus Johnny Depp case in the US.”
“I say that because we all know of a series of libel cases in which wealthy men have sought to protect their reputation when women accuse them of abuse. Current legislation puts survivors at a disadvantage. For example, under the Defamation Act 2013, the defendant in libel cases can argue a public interest defence, but that is not available to survivors. I appeal to the Government to look at that carefully, and at how the Bill can be extended beyond the civil courts to the family courts. In January 2022, I participated in a Backbench Business debate on the use of lawfare and strategic litigation against public participation by those seeking to suppress public debate, bully people into submission and conceal vital information that is in the public interest. I described my experience of lawfare being used against me.”