Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is an honour to lead this Adjournment debate. Let me say at the start that another colleague wants to speak, and I will take two very short interventions from Members I have had conversations with before the debate.

Next month, on 4 October, thousands of people from east London will be marking the 90th anniversary of what is commonly known as the battle of Cable Street, when the Jewish community and allies stood together to march off Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts. The victory is held up today as a high water mark for so many causes, including anti-fascism, grassroots Jewish activism and cross-community solidarity. It echoes from 1936 to the present in so many ways.

Antisemitism and hate crimes are again on the rise in Britain. Just last week, a man was charged after making a Nazi salute outside a synagogue. Of course, we must never forget the victims of the recent antisemitic attacks in north London—including the stabbings in Golders Green earlier this year—and the abhorrent Heaton Park terrorist attack a year ago, which took the lives of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. We are also seeing the return of far-right and racist agitators who seek, much like Mosely, to exploit the struggles of working-class people in this country and sow hatred, intolerance and division.

In the UK, migrants and asylum seekers are a sharp target. The anti-migrant pogroms in Belfast were just one among many chilling incidents of racist violence in recent months.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing the debate. It is indeed important that we remember this occasion: 90 years ago, a fascist march was prevented from passing through Cable Street in London.

Northern Ireland has been especially afflicted by deep divisions running through our community, and the Peaceplus action plan has tried to address those issues. Does the hon. Lady agree that expanding and supporting cross-community initiatives across the UK and Northern Ireland can help strengthen relationships between communities? Remembering such events help us to do just that.

[Apsana Begum]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that communities must work with one another to deal with the challenges of our time—particularly the rise of racism and fascism, which we see across the world.

Far-right parties are winning elections across western Europe, so we must look seriously and carefully at our own history and how we overcame those challenges in the past. Fascism was not defeated in Britain in a single day, but no day contributed as much as 4 October 1936. I am pleased that the Minister, a fellow London MP, is here, along with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), in whose constituency Cable Street is now situated after the boundary changes in 2024. We are here to debate the 90th anniversary and understand how the battle came to be.

By 1934, the British Union of Fascists was concentrating its efforts on building a menacing street movement in inner-city areas. In east London, the BUF had four large branches. Thousands of supporters were based in a diverse and economically struggling area, where the largest minorities were of Irish Catholic and east European Jewish heritage. About 100,000 Jews lived in east London, where shop signs were written in Yiddish and more than 100 synagogues and shtiebels were established. Fascists attempted to set Irish Catholic and Jewish communities against each other, accusing Jews of taking English jobs, smashing their market stalls and attacking and beating Jews returning from synagogue or from shopping.

On 26 September 1936, Mosley announced his intention to march provocatively right through those Jewish neighbourhoods and hold rallies with his supporters, but within two days 100,000 signatures were collected by the Jewish People’s Council—a local grassroots campaign formed only that year—to petition the then Home Secretary for a ban on the march to

“retain peaceable and amicable relations between all sections of East London’s population.”

Local mayors and local MPs including one of my predecessors, the great Labour MP George Lansbury, handed in the petition, yet shockingly the then Home Secretary refused and instead decided to send 7,000 police officers to protect Mosley and the blackshirts. Just hours after the refusal was issued, the Jewish People’s Council began to distribute leaflets calling on citizens of London to make sure the fascist march would not take place.

Far from being a spontaneous uprising, it took an extraordinary amount of effort to organise east London’s resistance. The Jewish People’s Council worked frantically to mobilise Jewish and non-Jewish communities locally, while Communist party, Independent Labour party and trade union branches all mobilised the area’s textile workers, dockers and railway workers.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)]

As one whose family members were part of that demonstration in 1936 against the march of fascism, I compliment the hon. Member on her wonderful speech. Does she acknowledge that when we commemorate the march on Sunday week in her constituency and her borough we will also be opposing the rise of the far right in this country and all across Europe? We should remember that in 1936 all of officialdom said to the people of the east end, “Shut up, do nothing about it and let them march.” The people refused to let them march—it was the biggest defeat that Mosley and the fascists ever had in Britain—and we should thank them for their bravery.

[Apsana Begum]

The right hon. Member is correct. The debate is about recognising those really courageous, brave efforts. He speaks of his family’s contribution, as his parents were at the battle of Cable Street; over the years, I have spoken to him about his parents’ stories.

By the time that the human blockade was formed, tens of thousands of protesters had gathered at Gardiner’s corner at Aldgate, hugely outnumbering the 4,000 fascists and their 7,000-strong police protection. It is important to remember that younger anti-fascists—children as young as 12—acted as runners delivering messages and directing for reinforcements. Far too often overlooked is the role of women, who leafleted and organised workers in the run-up to the march and in their thousands defended barricades on the day.

To clear a path for the fascists, the police brutalised protesters with truncheons and attempted to charge their horses through their path. Hundreds of Jews and anti-fascists engaging in self-defence were seriously injured or arrested, and later accused by the police of having instigated the violence. Police were unable to force their entry via Aldgate or Whitechapel after huge confrontations there and eventually closed in on Cable Street. They broke through the first barrier at Cable Street, but fierce resistance pushed them back. By late afternoon, Mosley was instructed to retreat westwards. The police withdrew, and that evening celebrations erupted across the east end of London.

As the daughter of migrants who moved to east London, I feel it is all too important to consider how community solidarity and resistance continued in the aftermath. The BUF did not disappear overnight, but anti-fascists were able to build on the battle to form a confident and united mass movement in the east end of London. Leafleting and public campaigning took place to keep out Mosley’s fascists in local elections held five months later, while initiatives such as the Stepney Tenants Defence League were pivotal in uniting the Irish and Jewish communities that Mosley had attempted to divide. Jews stood with Irish Catholics, and vice versa, against evictions and exploitation by landlords. They made it clear that their struggle was a class struggle, and this cut away at the remaining support for the BUF’s antisemitic politics in east London.

For me and for anti-racists across east London and far beyond, this is an enduring inspiration. Many of those present spoke movingly about the cross-community solidarity that they saw at Cable Street that day. They included people such as Charlie Goodman. Charlie was arrested at Cable Street and after three months in prison went on to fight for the republicans in Spain. He spoke of the

“Orthodox Jews with long silk coats and soft felt hats and the sidepieces standing shoulder to shoulder with Irish Catholics, dockers and Somali seamen…they all felt there was a need to be out there to stand on that particular day.”

In other words, they knew that an injury to one was an injury to all.

This, too, is how subsequent generations of east-enders have united in the face of hostile racist threats. Indeed, in the decades after Cable Street, east London’s Bangladeshi community, especially its youth movements and socialist and trade unionist allies, mobilised in response to the racially motivated murder of a 25-year-old textile worker, Altab Ali, in 1978. A huge demonstration marched Altab Ali’s coffin to Downing Street to demand their rights, while Bangladeshis and anti-racists together organised night patrols to protect communities from neo-Nazi threats.

In the 1990s, communities on the Isle of Dogs in my constituency came together to confront the British National party. Trade unionists, the Bangladeshi community and allies once again organised huge demonstrations and mobilised across communities to challenge the BNP’s support base. Ahead of the 75th anniversary of the battle of Cable Street, the English Defence League was marched off Whitechapel, and even more recently the United Kingdom Independence party failed in its attempt to drive a crusade towards mosques last October and in its provocations again in January this year. Generation after generation of east-enders have had to confront attempts to divide our neighbours, to target, attack and intimidate them and to spread fear in our communities. As the historian, educator and author David Rosenberg has often reminded us, the anti-fascists at the battle of Cable Street did not have a blueprint, but they left us one with their sheer courage.

As difficult as this may be for some, we must also pay attention to the catastrophically poor decisions from the police and political establishment at the time. The shameful decisions of the then Home Secretary amounted to tacit consent for the fascist assault in east London. His mounted police cracked skulls and arrested scores of protesters, some of whom received custodial sentences with hard labour for defending themselves and their communities. Six fascists were arrested, compared with 79 anti-fascists. Others, including the then Labour leadership, urged members to stay away from Cable Street that day. However, rank and file members, trade unionists and grassroots socialists all saw the necessity of defeating the blackshirts and continued to organise and mobilise.

The victory at Cable Street has been memorialised in the iconic Cable Street mural, a major piece of public art unveiled in 1983 on the wall of the former St George’s town hall. It depicts a chaotic scene of mass resistance and street battles, and is itself a grassroots piece of cultural resistance with its own fascinating history. I would like to know whether the Government will be working to protect that cultural heritage, particularly as it has, sadly, been vandalised numerous times. I know that, unlike in 1936, the Government have invested resources into building community cohesion and inter-faith activities in my borough of Tower Hamlets, and I am pleased that my local council, along with local voluntary organisations, have been awarded Common Ground resilience funds to build social connections across communities, complementing numerous initiatives from the Mayor of London.

Next month, on 4 October, east London will be standing together. Trade unionists, Jews, Muslims, Bangladeshis, Somalis, socialists and many thousands more will be at Cable Street once again to mark the history, legacy and values of all those brave people who stood together 90 years ago to say, “No pasarán! They shall not pass!” Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to them and to the organising committee, including the Jewish Socialists’ Group, who have done so much to immortalise the legacy of Cable Street, and tell us how the Government will honour the legacy of Cable Street and the anti-fascists of the day as we confront the rising antisemitism, racism and division of today? As my friend Rabbi Herschel Gluck OBE said:

“Cable Street isn’t just a place on the map. It’s a concept. It’s an idea. The message of Cable Street is that we must never let evil pass.”

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, and as a survivor of domestic abuse with direct experience of how that issue relates to social housing, I hope that the Bill can truly ensure that it leaves no survivor behind. Indeed, survivors and survivor-led organisations that have been campaigning for decades welcome many provisions in the Bill, but they have also expressed concern that some of the proposed protections would apply to too small a proportion of survivors.

With criminal justice outcomes for domestic abuse so poor, it is clear that civil outcomes should be considered as part of the mandatory grounds for eviction. I am glad to have heard today that the issuing of a protective order will be introduced to schedule 1. I also believe that we should consider enhancing these grounds to include victims and survivors of rape and other sexual offences, including where a perpetrator is not an intimate partner, for instance a flatmate. Will the Minister clarify how the Bill will incentivise or ensure that these powers are actually used by landlords, rather than leaving them as wholly discretionary?

On joint tenancies, there are grounds to say that the proposals exclude many survivors who are not listed as tenants, disproportionately affecting younger survivors and survivors of familial abuse. Will the Minister clarify if the Government have considered or are considering expanding these protections by accepting established evidence of residency in place of named tenancy? Furthermore, when a perpetrator has been removed from a joint tenancy, an unsustainable financial burden might arise for a survivor holding sole custody. With the benefits system likely too slow to respond, Women’s Aid, Refuge and others have called for consideration to be given by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister’s own Department as to how to incorporate affordability assessments at the point of transfer.

Provisions on alternative accommodation raise the issue of furniture poverty, which is faced by far too many survivors. There are calls from experts to introduce a statutory duty for social housing provided to survivors to come furnished, and I hope the Government will pick up on that.

Although I have raised many different points for consideration, there should be no doubt that the ambition of halving violence against women and girls in a decade will require painstaking efforts across all Departments and the examination of all frameworks. On housing, there is still far more to be done, and that mean listening to the VAWG sector and to survivors when they point out shortfalls in these proposals. I hope that the Minister will listen to these concerns and offer to meet members of the APPG to discuss our concerns and the implementation of the measures.

Representation of the People Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

We have all seen growing concern about offshore wealth, murky financial funding networks and, increasingly, cryptocurrency billionaires seeking political influence. Reform UK’s reliance on support from offshore crypto figures has brought those questions, quite rightly, firmly into the public eye. That is a problem for all of us, regardless of which political party or tradition we belong to. The public deserve confidence that political influence in this country cannot be bought, whether through shell companies, foreign money, cryptocurrencies or corporate loopholes. That is why we must close the gaps that remain, strengthen transparency, and ensure that our democracy serves voters rather than vested interests.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 58 and 59 in my name. For far too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been locked out of our politics, for reasons ranging from the risk to physical safety to the threat of further exposure to post-separation harassment, as well as the serious toll on mental and emotional wellbeing. I know this all too well from my own horrific election experiences, where my ex-husband stood against me. I know that my experiences are not unique, and there are others who have suffered. In fact, many people who are survivors of domestic abuse cannot make the decision to run and stand for office because of the associated risks. New clauses 58 and 59 would resolve all those issues by extending to survivors of domestic abuse the protections that are afforded to the victims of other offences by enhancing disqualification orders under the Elections Act 2022, so that domestic abuse offences are adequately covered.

I am proud to say that so many leading women’s rights and violence against women and girls organisations, including Elect Her, the Jo Cox Foundation, Right to Equality, Women’s Aid, Southall Black Sisters and many more, have joined me in calling for the law to change, along with at least 40 Members from all parties across this House. I am very grateful for that support. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission wrote to me recently agreeing that these amendments would

“help strengthen candidate protection and enforcement against perpetrators.”

I am asking Members to support new clauses 58 and 59, and I am calling on the Government to adopt those changes. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement over the past few weeks on my amendments, and for meeting with me. In her closing remarks, I hope that she will confirm that the Government will consider updating schedule 9 of the Elections Act through secondary legislation, looking at protections for survivors of domestic abuse, including a greater number of relevant offences being included, so that survivors can confidently and safely stand in elections.

Our democracy cannot be said to be representative if we tolerate the structural barriers that block out survivors. Every survivor of domestic abuse should have the same right as anyone else to stand for office.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her place; she will make a fantastic Minister. I want to start by talking about the risks that we are seeing to our democracy: the emergence of AI and the use of crypto to fund parties, alongside an expanding electorate and a move away from the two-party system. It is vital that the Bill introduces a much-needed refresh.

One area that the Bill has overlooked is electoral participation, which has been in stark decline for many years. At the last general election, just 59.7% of the electorate voted—the lowest turnout since 2001. The picture is far worse in local elections and by-elections; the Clacton by-election, for instance, saw turnout of a mere 44%, although there may have been other reasons for that. Low turnout is indicative of a worrisome lack of engagement in the most integral act of political participation.

That is why I have tabled new clause 57, which would require the Government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general and local elections in England within 12 months of the Bill passing. Since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924, Australia has consistently seen a minimum turnout of 90%, with only a minimal fine for non-participation. There are, of course, legitimate reasons why some cannot vote, and this new clause recognises that, while also protecting the right to spoil one’s ballot paper or return a blank paper.

Coupled with the compulsory voting provision, new clause 57 would introduce a programme of civic education. This is important, as research from the Institute For Public Policy Research shows that fewer than 42% of teachers in England report their school providing regular citizenship lessons. As the incredibly bright young people who participated in my activism academy this summer told me, it is not just young people who need political education through no fault of their own—many adults also do not understand the basics of our political system. Knowledge is power, which is why new clause 57 calls for the production of learning materials for adults, too.

Alongside new clause 57, I support a number of new clauses that would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to qualifying EU citizens and foreign nationals with the right to remain in the UK. I have also supported measures that address the wild west of UK political donation regulations. Our democracy is seriously at risk of being hijacked by those who have only their own interests at heart.

I am extremely proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) with new clauses 58 and 59 to protect survivors of domestic abuse in public life. I do not understand why support of such new clauses would even be a question or why we would not support them right now, today.

Finally, although the Bill does not cover constituency boundaries, I would really like to see a review of how they are set. We represent constituents regardless of their right to vote, and thinking about the numbers in terms of the electorate who go on to vote, fewer and fewer people are involved in our political decisions. However, it is not just that: boundaries drawn on the electorate, not on residents, mean that inner-city constituencies like mine, which have the highest levels of residents relative to electorate, face disproportionately higher levels of casework, representing far more people. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter when enacting part 2 of the Bill.

Bills of this nature do not come around often. They offer a generational chance to refresh our democracy, and I hope that the Government will recognise the benefits that these amendments would bring.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the moving and impassioned speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler).

I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her deeply moving tribute and the contribution she made today, speaking about her dear sister. I also pay tribute to the work of the rest of Jo’s family, who, in the decade since her senseless and terrible murder, have been champions for celebrating her life, her legacy and her values. Jo’s principled internationalism and her humanitarian legacy are and should be a source of great pride to her loved ones. It was the singular sense of humanity and compassion that she brought to her causes which drove them forward. From refugee rights to the protection of civilians in war, her contributions were remarkable.

Jo’s work in Syria rightfully won many admirers in many countries, and we should also remember her outspoken and impassioned advocacy for the rights of the Palestinian people. After working in Gaza and the west bank with Oxfam, Jo spoke passionately in Parliament about the need for the Government to do more for humanitarian aid in Gaza, as well as for civilian protection during the 2014 Gaza war. I know that her voice has been sorely missed in this place over recent years.

I must also place on record my admiration for the work of the Jo Cox Foundation. As Members have said, the efforts of the foundation are carrying forward Jo’s mission on tackling loneliness and social isolation. The scale of loneliness in this country is a tragedy in and of itself, but the impact of this isolation on an individual’s health and wellbeing and on the fabric of our social wellbeing demands real action. The foundation’s efforts deserve recognition, and I support the campaign for a new cross-Government action plan to tackle loneliness, while noting my admiration for organisations in my constituency, including Neighbours in Poplar, for their work in bringing our communities together.

Two years ago, I participated in research undertaken by the Jo Cox Foundation for its 2024 Civility Commission report, “No place in politics: tackling abuse and intimidation”. As I stated to those at the foundation then, I have long faced a heightened risk to my own safety: serious death threats, threats to kidnap me, threats of sexual violence and threats about ripping off my hijab in public. This abuse has not relented in the years since I was first elected to this House, and I am sad to say that, despite progress being made on the representation of women in this House, I do not feel there has been sufficient progress in our country to protect elected representatives or those who are standing for election.

Despite all the initiatives on security and justice in the years since Jo’s death, politics in this country remains a dangerous and difficult environment for women. We know that elected representatives and candidates from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are particularly targeted for abuse. I say this knowing that Jo was absolutely passionate about achieving a 50:50 Parliament, and she was a passionate advocate for women standing for public office not only in the UK but in many different countries around the world. The constant abuse and threats of violence against women representatives and candidates represent a major obstacle that is holding us back in the UK, and we must do more.

Young people, women and survivors of domestic abuse often reach out to me and other Members of this House to say that they would like to stand for office, to take forward their lived experiences into politics, and they ask us for advice. I have to be completely frank that I now often struggle to give them that encouragement, because after many years of trying to rebuild and move on with my life, I am really aware of the physical and mental health toll on me as the post-separation harassment goes on and on.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work? Before I came to this place, I did not follow many politicians, I am sorry to say, but I did follow the hon. Lady and a few like her who have always been an absolute rock and the strongest champion for the rights not just of women but of any person who has been the target of abuse or suffered at the hands of others. I wanted to put that on the record.

There are sections in this House and in the community who say that hate speech online or in person is not as important to investigate as real crimes—burglaries, violence and other crimes we have seen this week. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not an either/or? We have to tackle all crimes across our society, and tackling hate speech will hopefully reduce the level of violent crime that we see on our streets.

[Apsana Begum]

I agree that we must take steps both online and offline with the same level of energy and commitment, and I thank the hon. Member for his kind words.

When Members first come to Parliament or enter politics, they know that they are ultimately taking a risk with their life, and that is not something we should have to do when we put ourselves forward for office. It is not easy for me to say that I have also contended with that scenario—perhaps I have to understand that it just comes with the job. There have been times when I have legitimately feared for my life, and that was particularly true during the last general election campaign. As I have previously informed the House, during that election the abuse and intimidation that I had long endured reached new heights. It was an election in which my abusive ex-husband stood as a candidate against me, after I had already faced several years of post-separation harassment. Even before that I had already endured a vexatious trial, and a reselection process in the Labour party, during which I experienced harassment from his associates. Alarm bells were rung by organisations in the domestic abuse sector, and representations were made on my behalf, but the situation is ongoing and unresolved. All of that has been a deeply harrowing experience that I truly do not believe any survivor of domestic abuse should be expected to endure.

I also feel a strong sense of duty and responsibility to other survivors of domestic abuse in this country, and over the years they have reached out to me, saying that they feel a strength when they see people in this House speak about their own experiences. I do not want to be a case study or a statistic sometime in the future, or for us to say that nothing could really happen in this situation, yet sometime down the line, one or two decades later, we will all look back and say, “Oh yeah—she was really failed. The system did not protect her as a survivor of domestic abuse. We are better now, but there were failings along the way.”

For that reason, along with Members across the House, I am working to try to secure better protection for candidates facing domestic violence, post-separation harassment, and hostility in the context of election campaigns. That is why I have provided testimony and participated in the work of the all-party group on women in Parliament, and given evidence to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is developing a method for institutional action—MINA—to protect candidates standing in elections or those in elected office who suffer violence in politics.

Domestic abuse can affect people from all walks of life and in all forms of employment, including those of us serving in public office. All survivors should be able to have dreams and hopes, a life beyond domestic abuse, and play a role in national policy making and our democracy, just like anybody else who has not gone through those awful and horrific experiences. This is not just about me. As I have said, no survivor of domestic abuse should be prevented from standing or staying in office due to post-separation harassment.

[Jess Phillips]

It has been an honour and a pleasure to work with my hon. Friend over the years, and I absolutely agree with her. Does she agree that perpetrating domestic abuse or sexual violence should eliminate someone from being able to hold such office?

[Apsana Begum]

That is exactly the area that many of us are looking at in the Representation of the People Bill before the House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. She has publicly said that my experiences were completely unacceptable and unjustified, and that we must all do better to ensure that no one who seeks to stand for public office or to represent their communities has to face what I have had to face. She and I both work with many organisations and activists across the tackling violence against women and girls sector. That entire movement was built on the backs of survivors who decided to do something for themselves and for others, and who became activists. Why should those people not be able to stand for office? Why should they not be policymakers? Surely that is almost a natural progression. Why should they look at situations such as mine and think to themselves, “No, I can’t do that; I can’t take it too far” because the perpetrator will target them?

It must be the duty of everyone in society, and of all political parties, to ensure that elected representatives who are survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment in their roles. I wish to thank members of the Jo Cox Foundation, including Dr Hannah Phillips, who I have worked with, as well as Elect Her and other organisations, for their encouragement. I also thank many of my constituents who have stood and continue to stand with me throughout what I continue to endure. I am also grateful for the support of my independent domestic violence advocate, without whom I do not think I would have been able to go through many of the procedures and processes that I continue to endure, just to be heard and to ensure that the right protections are in place.

I was elected to this place three years after Jo’s tragic murder, but the impact that she had on those who had the privilege to know her is clear. I know how proud many of my constituents are to have called Jo a neighbour in Poplar and Limehouse, and once again I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and say how I touched I have been by her words. I hope we can try to change politics for the better, build a society with dignity at its heart, and improve safety for women and survivors of domestic abuse.

[Kim Leadbeater]

May I put on record how hugely impressive my hon. Friend’s bravery has been in her political journey? I hope she will agree with me and other colleagues that we need voices such as hers in public life, and we should encourage women, whatever tragedies they have been through in their own lives as victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, because we need their voices in this place.

[Apsana Begum]

Absolutely—we can only be a rich and effective democracy with all voices in the debate. In this House, through the increased representation of women, we have been able to enact and make progress on policies that meet the needs of a wide range of people in our country.

It is important for us to be able to change politics for the better, to improve safety for women and survivors of domestic abuse, and increase their ability to participate in politics. I hope I may be able to play some part in that work, and I will continue to do so to honour Jo’s legacy and values.

Oral Answers to Questions

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to reform the leasehold sector.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

19. What steps he plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

20. What steps his Department is taking to reform the leasehold sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I recognise, of course, the situation my hon. Friend is describing and how unacceptable it is. The Government are committed to ensuring that those living in leasehold properties are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents. On 4 July last year, we consulted on the introduction of mandatory qualifications for managing agents, and we are analysing responses right now. We are clear that this consultation is not the final step in the regulation of agents, and we will set out our full position shortly.

[Apsana Begum]

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?

[Steve Reed]

I commend the work of the Friends in High Places group, which my hon. Friend has been working with. We are now seeing improvements in the performance of the Building Safety Regulator, but she is right that unfair costs should not fall on leaseholders. If it would be helpful, I will happily arrange a meeting between her and the relevant Minister.

House Building: London

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Over the past years, I have been working with constituents and campaigners who have long been concerned about ongoing disempowerment in planning and development processes, and deregulation of the building and developer industry. Londoners and my constituents have been priced out, with increasing gentrification and affordable homes that are not only in shortage but all too often just not affordable. That is the legacy of the previous Tory Government and their previous Tory Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

That is why I warmly welcome the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, a much-needed law to increase tenants’ protections against unscrupulous and rogue landlords. That is also why I am concerned about the announced changes to affordable housing delivery in London, which will mean that developers can get fast-tracked planning permission for developments with just 20% affordable homes, compared with 35%, as had been the case for numerous years. I understand that the policy’s intention is to speed up the delivery of house building in London, but at what cost?

For so many across London, including in my constituency, the 35% requirement was seen to be an injustice, in and of itself, that contributes to sustaining the housing crisis across London, with rising rates of homelessness, insufficient social housing, soaring rents and associated poor-quality housing. The announcement that the requirement will be reduced to 20% therefore feels like adding insult to injury. Constituents see no benefit to them, but more profits for developers, at a time when London is experiencing record levels of homelessness. Shelter has said that more than 97,000 children are homeless in temporary accommodation, as I know acutely from my constituency casework. The demand for social rent homes is at an all-time high.

In asking questions to the Minister, I recognise that all that reflects the legacy and record left by the Tory party in government, but what alternative solutions to delivering social housing have been considered? Will there be any assessment of the impact of the 20% requirement on social housing supply in London? Importantly, how will social housing commitments in existing planning permissions in London be safeguarded and maintained to ensure that there is no reduction in the delivery of the social housing that Londoners need, in particular where developments are already approved? That is especially important in my constituency, where there has been a considerable delay to the Chrisp Street redevelopment plans. I am concerned that targets and previous commitments may not be honoured.

It is my strong view, and the view of constituents who have contacted me over the years, that development should be focused on solving the existing housing crisis and be driven in the interests of local people. Rather than relying on developers and lowering ambitions on social housing, the priority in London ought to be increasing direct investment in social housing, particularly council housing, for the present as well as the future. Housing is a right, and we must all have safe, affordable and secure housing. We need investment and empowerment in our communities, and to resolve the housing crisis we need a mass building programme of social and particularly council housing.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

I am very grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, not least because my constituents make up one of the highest proportions of signatories to the first petition, which calls on the Government to keep the five-year ILR pathway for existing skilled worker visa holders, so many of whom live with uncertainty—that is a daily reality in my constituency.

The Government’s immigration White Paper proposes several measures that will make settlement significantly harder to reach for many people, including increasing the standard qualifying period for settlement from five years to 10 years—although the visa routes to which that will apply are not explicitly specified—and introducing the so-called earned settlement and citizenship model, whereby a set of contributions to society and the economy would serve as eligibility criteria for being able to settle more quickly.

I understand that there are explicit exemptions for partners of British citizens, who will continue to qualify after five years, and quite rightly also for victims of domestic abuse. However, having met and spoken to many of my constituents, I seek urgent clarity from the Minister. Precisely who will be affected by the ILR proposals in the White Paper? Will they be applied retrospectively to people already in the UK, including those approaching the end of a five-year pathway to settlement? If a consultation is to take place in the autumn, who will it be with? Will the Government meet with Praxis, an organisation that has collated numerous pieces of evidence and undertaken research, and with which I share a long-standing relationship in my borough on immigration casework? It submitted a letter, along with 100 other civil liberties organisations, requesting a meeting with the Government in May this year. When will the Government conduct an equalities and human rights impact assessment of their proposals to extend the qualifying period to 10 years and introduce the so-called earned settlement model? Under that model, how will the points be calculated or earned, and how much of a reduction in the 10-year qualifying period will be available?

Those are incredibly important questions, to which my constituents and many people in our country need answers. My constituents were already living in limbo before the White Paper was published, but given that applicants for the ILR route have primarily based their claims on the right to a family or private life, and given last week’s announcement of the suspension of the family reunification scheme for refugees, which we understand to be temporary—that is, of course, separate—they are feeling more anxious about these matters than ever before.

I am worried about the widening scope and overall direction of immigration legislation and frameworks. There is already a strenuous process in place. Given that people on the existing 10-year routes have to apply every two and a half years until they complete 10 years of leave and are eligible for ILR, the new proposals beg the question what the intention really is.

A survey undertaken in 2023 by the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, the Institute for Public Policy Research and Praxis found that 40% of those in work on the 10-year route were employed in health and social care settings, including as carers, nurses and cleaners. That will be no surprise to many of us given the history of migration to the UK, from the Windrush generation to the skilled workforces who arrived in waves, including in the 1970s, in areas like mine. According to the Migration Observatory’s analysis of Home Office data, the top five nationalities of applicants on these routes between 2016 and 2020 were Nigerian, Pakistani, Indian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi.

I am afraid to say that it is no surprise, and it is not a coincidence, that in recent years, during the pandemic, black, Asian and minority ethnic people and women disproportionately suffered in terms of deaths, workplace rights and hardship. They of course include workers in health and social care settings. The pandemic laid bare the structures of inequality and discrimination. We have to be very careful about the proposed changes to the ILR route for those reasons as well. The petitions rightly point out that the skilled worker route is the main UK work visa route, and that includes the health and care worker sub-category for NHS staff.

From what we know of the proposed measures in the immigration White Paper, they appear to be punitive. Wide-ranging evidence suggests that long pathways are detrimental to individuals and communities. No one should be subject to them. Rather than exemptions for some and not for others, we need a thorough overhaul of settlement and citizenship pathways so that people can settle in the UK in a timely and affordable way. People need to feel a sense of belonging and to be able to fulfil their potential. I fear that the proposals will undermine the resilience of our communities. Putting more people on extended routes will multiply the effects already being felt in our communities.

In the east end of London, we have a proud history of welcoming people from all parts of the world and all walks of life, whether they are from Europe, Bangladesh, Somalia or even Hong Kong, because we know we are better for it. As to the proposals in the immigration White Paper, we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and change our direction.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which shows how the damage caused by the organisations that cladded those buildings and their systemic failures have had a real impact. That is why, since we were elected in July, my No. 1 focus has been trying to make sure that those buildings are safe and that remediation takes place. Seven years on is far too long for those buildings to still be unsafe, and later in my speech I will come on to some of the issues we are trying to resolve, including the people who are paying exorbitant insurance rates at this time.

Seven years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, thousands of people across the country still live in homes with unsafe cladding. The toll that this has placed on thousands of people is, I know, intolerable, with the financial worries, the impact on mental health and the lives put on hold. People have been unable to plan their futures, and may fear going to sleep in case something happens in the night, as it did in June 2017. This is a scandal. It permeates every aspect of the lives of those who live in unsafe buildings—buildings bought or rented in good faith—and it is completely unacceptable.

People must be and must feel safe in their homes, and we are taking a major step towards that with the statement laid in the House today. Our remediation acceleration plan sets out our ambitious measures to fix buildings faster, identify those still at risk and ensure that residents are supported through the remediation process. We are committed to getting homes fixed faster through the remediation acceleration plan. We aim to do that remediation by 2029 at the latest on all residential buildings of 18 metres or over with unsafe cladding, through a Government-funded scheme. By the end of 2029, every residential building of 11 metres or over with unsafe cladding will either have been remediated or have a date for completion, or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties.

We will introduce new legal obligations on landlords to remediate unsafe cladding, with severe penalties, including sanctions for inaction. We are backing this up with new funding and new guidance for regulators to drive remediation forward. We have a plan to tackle the remediation needed in the social sector to support social landlords to ensure that their stock is safe. The building safety levy and developers’ repayment of Government funds will ensure that the cost of fixing these buildings does not fall on the taxpayer. Above all, we will take measures to protect residents and leaseholders, who are the innocent parties in this, during remediation. This is our plan, and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley, will be able to share more of its details at the end of this debate.

Developers must play their part in accelerating remediation. They have already committed to fix or pay to fix unsafe buildings at an estimated cost of more than £3.4 billion, but progress has been too slow. Works have started in fewer than half of developers’ buildings known to be unsafe. That is why we have agreed a new joint plan with developers to accelerate remediation and improve the experience of residents, which we are publishing today. For the first time, developers are committing to achieve ambitious stretch targets to assess all their buildings by July 2025, and to start or complete remedial works on all their unsafe buildings by July 2027. To meet these stretch targets, developers will need to more than double the pace at which they have been assessing buildings and starting remediation work so far this year. Already more than 25 developers have signed up to the plan, bringing more than 95% of the buildings that developers need to remediate into scope, which is encouraging.

We are often reminded just how crucial decisive action to replace unsafe cladding is. Just last week, a fire at the Quadrangle building in Greater Manchester, a building that was remediated in 2021 through the ACM private sector cladding remediation fund, thankfully did not turn into an emergency situation. If the building had not been remediated, that situation could have been much more serious. To keep residents safe in their homes until remediation work has been carried out, we are extending the waking watch replacement fund until the spring of 2026. I will confirm the long-term plans at the end of the next spending review.

Too many leaseholders in buildings that need remediation face unaffordable insurance premiums, and this cannot continue. I can confirm that from today we will start working with insurers to consider whether, for the duration of the remediation programmes, the Government might support industry to reduce fire-related liabilities to lower the high insurance bills that leaseholders face. As part of our commitment to minimising unfair costs to leaseholders, I can also announce that we are tackling the problem of the unfair charges from those managing buildings insurance, and we have launched a consultation on that today.

I want the message to go out loud and clear that we expect the industry and those who build and maintain our homes to lead the way in creating a culture that puts the safety of residents first. Money is available to make buildings safe, but, incredibly, some landlords are still failing to act. Through their inaction, they are preventing homes from being made safe. It is outstandingly neglectful and a dereliction of responsibility. We will not stand for this any longer.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State may be aware that my constituency has the highest number of high-rise buildings in the entire country. My constituents want reassurance on whether the scope of penalties and sanctions for landlords that do not comply and do not follow the remediation acceleration plan will include preventing them from expanding their portfolios and continuing to build in the manner they are, thus ensuring accountability and that the harms they have caused are not reproduced.

[Angela Rayner]

I have been very clear with developers by asking why somebody would want to purchase a home from a developer that is not seen to be taking action on remediation. That is why we have got many of them round the table to sign up to this acceleration plan. I do believe that they want to remediate this problem. It has been too long and things need to change. We are clear that there will be consequences for landlords for failing to act. With the support of Parliament, we will put in place legislation to ensure that they do.

The London borough of Tower Hamlets recently became the first local authority in England to successfully obtain a remediation order, and I expect to see many more in the future. To ensure that regulators can act, we will provide £33 million in the next financial year to local authorities, fire and rescue authorities and the Building Safety Regulator, so that they can tackle hundreds of cases per year. We will provide a further £5 million to the recovery strategy unit to increase its capacity to act. Let me be clear that this includes, where necessary, pursuing landlords in the courts. The industry must act now to fix the thousands of unsafe buildings that must be made safe. It must take seriously its obligations to remediate buildings and to design, construct and maintain buildings safely.

If you own an unsafe building or you are a landlord who is not fixing a building, this Government will make sure that you do, and we will propose legislation to ensure that you do. There can be no more delay, no more excuses and no more obstruction. To make the change that this Government and the Grenfell inquiry demand, we must build effective services that command public trust and confidence, and that are fit for the 21st century. Those who flout their responsibilities will have nowhere to hide. We will take direct action to hold to account those who are failing to meet their obligations. That is why we have committed to a system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime, and why we will consult on robust sanctions, penalties and liabilities against manufacturers.

I can update the House that we have made good on our pledge to write to organisations identified by the inquiry for their part in this tragedy. Organisations will hold different levels of responsibility, but I can announce that we will publish guidance early next year to support the first set of decisions that will stop the most appalling companies from being awarded Government contracts.

As I have said, the system itself needs reform. Statutory guidance on building regulations covering fire safety and building design is now subject to continuous review by the Building Safety Regulator, but I want to go further. I can announce today that I have asked the regulator to undertake that a fundamental review of the building safety regulations guidance will be produced, updated and communicated to the construction industry, because we must get this right.

Employment Rights Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

I rise to speak as a proud trade unionist. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Too many people are in jobs that offer little or no security. My constituency casework has highlighted the reality of insecure work in the UK and has exposed the inadequacy of the law around worker protections. The rise of in-work poverty, workplace precarity, zero-hours contracts, bogus self-employment and contracting out puts workers at risk. We know that women and black, Asian and minority ethnic workers continue to face the disproportionate burden of working in insecure jobs with fewer rights and ongoing pay gaps.

After years of attacks on workers’ rights and hostility towards trade unions, it is a pleasure to welcome the Employment Rights Bill, which is without doubt a significant step forward for workers. I am particularly pleased to see the ballot thresholds from the Trade Union Act 2016 done away with, and to see the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which trade unions have criticised as being undemocratic, unworkable and illegal.

I have long been concerned that current laws are already restricting the rights of workers to join and participate in trade unions and may breach international labour standards. Many of us would have liked to see the Bill completely ending fire and rehire and zero-hours contracts once and for all. I also understand that some unions are concerned about the rules allowing workers to have access to trade unions. They argue that the single best way to ensure that work pays more fairly is by expanding collective bargaining. I remain committed to strengthening trade union rights across the board.

I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister, who rightly raised the plight of carers and parents in relation to employment rights. I would also like to raise the plight of survivors of domestic abuse and violence. The statutory guidance on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 reminds us how pivotal the role and actions of an employer can be in the life of a survivor, who might only speak to managers and colleagues outside the home, as I know only too well as a survivor of ongoing abuse and harassment and having spoken to countless survivors. Employers should have a duty of care towards employees who are experiencing domestic abuse. I believe that the Bill could be further strengthened by bringing into scope the experiences of survivors of domestic abuse in the workplace. We should look at provisions such as flexible working and paid leave in that regard.

A thriving and just economy cannot be created without the full involvement and empowerment of the workforce. The Bill is an opportunity to lay the groundwork for a future in which workers can defend their pay, dignity and working conditions.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)]

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 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.

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. 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.