Getting Britain Working Again

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Apsana Begum

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

In 2024, the British people, including so many of my constituents, voted for change. After a decade of brutal austerity, they desperately needed a drastic and material improvement in their living standards. The last King’s Speech championed measures that have the potential to radically change the situation for people, from renters’ rights to employment rights and more. I am pleased that this King’s Speech brings forward the Government’s commitments to end conversion practices and to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Yet we are not seeing the transformative agenda that the country has been crying out for and that people who have always supported Labour want. We have seen policy U-turns, from winter fuel allowance to the lifting of the two-child limit, following significant political and public pressure. We have seen policies that the British public rejected just last week, such as the changes to indefinite leave to remain and, of course, the continued failure to take meaningful action against the genocide in Gaza. We have also seen the targeting of refugees and migrants, and the provisions of the immigration and asylum Bill are incredibly alarming. The direction of travel in policy means that the Government are now left facing existential questions about what the Labour party stands for, who it stands for and why.

The Government said in response to their losses last week that there needs to be a faster and quicker shift, but in the same direction. I want to be clear that this is not what my constituents want. My constituents and I refuse to accept that poverty and inequality have to be a normal part of our society and that nothing can be done about it. That is not why I came into politics.

It is true that the stark disregard for human suffering displayed by the Conservative Government will never, ever be forgotten. They drove people into poverty then punished them for being poor. They pursued the vulnerable and persecuted the disabled. That is why people have been desperate for real change. It is also true, however, that the United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world and London is the fifth wealthiest city in the world. The richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70% of the population, and the UK’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than 50% of our population. In that context, people simply do not believe that they must continue to endure more hardship for any longer.

I have said before that everything has to be costed and nothing is free in the purest sense, but the fact is that we are a relatively wealthy country and the resources are there in some form. They could be raised, for example, by ensuring that big business and the wealthy pay their fair share. If the wealthiest 1% in this country were taxed just a modest 1% more, it would raise £25 billion and leave more after. It is a question of priorities, political choices and in whose interests decisions are made.

I find myself asking again and again, “If there is not enough money, what is the plan to make sure that there is?” Why does austerity still have to be the political choice? That is why I call for the overall benefit cap to be lifted in full; the lifting of the two-child limit alone still leaves thousands of families excluded and trapped in poverty.

I appeal to the Government to ensure that there are no further attacks on the rights of disabled people in the UK. The Timms review is due to report in autumn, and I am obliged to make it clear for my constituents, many of whom are already impacted by cuts to the health component of universal credit, that any further attempts to restrict or cut personal independence payments would be disastrous and have to be dropped. If they are not dropped, at bare minimum there must be a full parliamentary vote.

Surely the greatest duty of any Government must be to protect and empower the most vulnerable people in our society and deliver social good, not social harm. I am clear about what my role must be, who elected me, and who I am here to represent, and I cannot in my conscience allow the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled to be exposed to any further brutality. If there is no money for disabled people not to be further punished through the welfare system, then the money must be found. If the way our economy is run means that large scale human suffering and wasted potential is unavoidable, it is up to the Government to change the way the economy is run.

The King’s Speech proposed a step forward towards the nationalisation of British Steel. I welcome that intention, just as I welcomed the first steps towards the nationalisation of railways in the last Session. However, it presents nationalisation almost as a move of last resort, after private interests have extracted all the profits they can from privatised industries. Why can we not have a conversation about nationalisation in the public good? When we are seeing the dire, shameful way that the private water industry is being mismanaged, a new water ombudsman in the clean water Bill is not enough to meet the scale of the problem. If they have the political will, the Government can meet the public support and demand for public ownership for mail, rail, water and gas, and end the disastrous experiments with privatisation.

I reaffirm my commitment to a publicly owned and run NHS that provides free and funded healthcare for all. That principle was an ironclad manifesto commitment, yet we have seen a return to private finance initiatives in the NHS—the same initiatives that have had disastrous consequences in constituencies such as mine in east London. Doctors themselves are resisting controversial Government decisions to sign partnerships with Palantir, and along with that, the agreement last year to appease Donald Trump will strip away National Institute for Health and Care Excellence medicine price controls, and lock in higher drug prices, doubling NHS spend on new medicines, and diverting funds from other vital NHS functions. That will only serve to benefit American big pharma. Private interests should never line their pockets at the expense of our society’s health, not least under a Labour Government.

The economy must also work to resolve the housing crisis. I have been looking closely at the social housing Bill, and I welcome its provisions and measures to protect tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse—something the sector has long been campaigning for. However, we will be looking at such measures closely because they need to work in practice, and I remain concerned about the Bill more widely. Can it truly provide the solutions needed to solve the housing crisis without ensuring a commitment to a mass social housing building programme and rent controls?

My east London constituency has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the entire country. We have people living in uninhabitable and overcrowded homes that are also not affordable. That is set against a backdrop of rising wealth in the financial sector and the encroaching City of London in the west, and the ever-expanding Canary Wharf real estate. It is why many of my constituents are concerned about what the legacy and future of the Billingsgate market site in my constituency could be. Could it provide genuinely affordable homes, or could it lead to more luxury flats being built that will drive local people, including families, out of our area? Likewise, many of my constituents who are struggling in the cost of living crisis are interested to know what the Government’s discussions with the financial giant J.P. Morgan will end up meaning for our area and whether decisions are being driven in the interests of local people and for the longevity of our area.

The Prime Minister claimed yesterday that the King’s Speech

“will tear down the status quo”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 22.]

The risk here is that disillusionment has begun to settle in. I believe there needs to be less talk of delivery and missions and more talk about how the Government will truly rebalance power and address inequality in the interests of workers and working-class people in this country. The Government must be louder and bolder, but in a vastly different political direction. That must mean showing up as a Government who take people’s material concerns seriously and addressing those concerns in line with the Labour values that they were founded on. More incrementalism sends a message to the British people that the Government do not understand what has gone wrong, because this country and its economy are not working for millions of people, and that demands transformative action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Apsana Begum

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am in favour of a number of amendments, but for the purposes of time I will largely keep my comments to new clauses 12 and 13 in my own name and new clause 14 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). New clause 12 would provide recourse to public funds to everyone holding a valid UK residence permit. New clause 13 would repeal the sections in the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts that restrict undocumented migrants’ access to work and services. New clause 14 seeks to abolish the immigration health surcharge. I am pleased these new clauses have received lots of support from Members across the House.

It will perhaps be obvious to colleagues that these new clauses are about addressing the unjust suffering caused by the Government’s hostile environment, a term used to describe all the policies that make life difficult for migrants living in the UK by explicitly and deliberately treating them as less deserving of dignity and humanity than British citizens.

My new clause 13, in particular, seeks to overturn the denial of basic human rights. Members will know from their constituency casework that the consequences are brutal and wide-reaching. The hostile environment deters people from reporting crime to the police or from calling out unsafe conditions and exploitative practices at work. It undermines trade union rights and pushes people into poor-quality and dangerous accommodation and homelessness. As new clause 14 highlights, the hostile environment even denies access to healthcare by scaring people from going to the doctor for fear of being charged or being reported, detained and deported.

No recourse to public funds, which new clause 12 addresses, abandons some migrants to having no safety net. It leaves children hungry, it pushes families into poverty and unsafe, overcrowded housing, and it means women, in particular, who flee abusive partners are not entitled to access mainstream refuges. It is breathtakingly cruel and unjust.

The disproportionate suffering that has been inflicted on migrants during the pandemic is well known, if apparently forgotten by this Government. Not only does the hostile environment produce a culture of fear that often risks the NHS being unable to do its job, but it puts all our communities in danger. Although such policies try to incentivise us to be suspicious of one another, they are not in the interest of the majority of people. It should be no surprise that the Bill is another horrifying extension of such an approach. It undermines human decency and must be opposed in every way.

The fact this is all in the context of the ongoing tragedy of people drowning in the English channel is chilling. That such people now potentially face jail sentences if they survive such precarious journeys, as well as an even more hostile environment, is catastrophically wrong.

I emphasise the humanity that runs through the amendments I am supporting today. We have to stop the political immigration game of misinformation and cynicism that has such horrendous human cost. There is no doubt that one of the reasons we are seeing scenes of desperate people trying to cross the channel is the lazy but deadly anti-migrant political agenda that closes off safe routes to the UK.

One of the biggest myths perpetuated by politicians is that they are too afraid to talk about migration when, in fact, the opposite is true. The more politicians talk about being tough on migration, the more they just talk about being tough on migration. For decades the rate of lawmaking in this area has exceeded the rate of lawmaking in every other social policy area.

When people repeat half-truths and inaccuracies and attempt to utilise society’s fears, prejudices and anxieties for opportunistic so-called political gain, a climate of acceptance is created for such ideas at all levels of society. The mainstream media must also reflect on the role of their focus on numbers and their use of words such as “flood,” “influx” and “waves.” I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) used the word “tsunami,” which is a disgrace.

Yet it is simply untrue that Britain takes in more refugees than everywhere else, and research shows that two thirds of asylum seekers crossing the channel in boats, for example, are finally granted asylum by the Government’s own measurements. Yes, we need solutions to the soaring inequality, the suffering and the frightening covid death toll over which this Government have presided, but we do not need suspicion and scapegoats. Wherever we are from, we all need a roof over our head, food to eat, healthcare and basic human kindness and solidarity. Surely the true measure of a civilised society is not in its hostility but in its humanity.

I commended these new clauses to the House.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. It includes a cross-party group of MPs who, to follow on from the comments made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), absolutely seek to take the toxicity out of this debate, to find consensus, to be careful in the language we use, and to find agreement and, indeed, pragmatic solutions. When it comes to crossing the channel in small boats, we certainly need pragmatic solutions.