Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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. Awdah is desperately missed by his community in the village of Umm al-Khair, who are under severe threat of settler attacks and from the Israeli miliary. Only this week, it has been reported that over 30 armed settlers under military protection rampaged through Umm al-Khair to attack Palestinians.

I raise this case to point out how weak the UK’s west bank policy is in practice. 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. Even though Levi is sanctioned, it is entirely legal for UK firms to do business with him and to sell his firm diggers or spare parts, concrete for new outposts or anything else. The limits of these sanctions are simply a travel ban and an asset freeze—weak.

The point is that this designation means nothing in practice if trade sanctions are not brought in to stymie support for illegal settlements. As hon. Members have said, these “complexities” are not fit to hide behind. When we see the action quite rightly taken on Russia and we see that many countries have already made a commitment to banning settlement trade, complexity comes across as a lazy excuse. The UK is being left behind internationally on this front and the Government appear to be farcically weak to the public, their MPs, the Palestinian people and even the Israeli Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

We now come to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), on securing this important debate. The issues raised in her Committee’s recent report speak strongly to the experiences of thousands of my constituents in Poplar and Limehouse, which is the constituency with the highest percentage of leasehold homes.

Like members of the Committee, I am not just alarmed but very angry about what many constituents have to go through to get even basic repairs and maintenance done. Far too many of them have to deal with uncommunicative —sometimes even rude or dismissive—managing agents, who can offer no clarity on maintenance works, and who delay necessary repairs again and again. To give a recent example, in the heatwaves, constituents living in Royal Captain Court in my constituency have endured the most horrible conditions. The lifts were forced into fire safety mode because of the extreme heat in the tower, which is not air-conditioned. One resident fainted on the staircase, and dozens of others suffered in the temperatures. Residents have said that until the BBC reported on the case, they received no replies from the managing agent Sanctuary about how, when or if repairs would be done.

The issue of lift breakdowns is common in my constituency, and will occur more and more as climate change intensifies. On top of that, as we all know, service charges and fees are going through the roof. One constituent recently contacted me to say that their service charges rose by 12% in the last year, after doubling in the decade up to that point. Residents of Aberfeldy Village in my constituency are reporting service charge increases of £600,000 by FirstPort, and residents of the Wapping Lane development report that Ballymore increased their service charges from £7,000 in 2014 to £17,000 this year.

Across the board, residents and constituents tell me that there is no transparency regarding the accounts, and we know that they cannot easily or fairly challenge increases in court. The Government have been consulting on the implementation of section 56 of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, and on provisions around service charge transparency—measures that many of my constituents need implemented swiftly. However, there must also be regulation of managing agents. I cannot simply accept the massive discrepancies in costs, the service charge increases, and the lack of communication and basic decency. In Poplar and Limehouse, many leasehold builds are huge. They are incredibly tall—over 20 floors high, in many cases—and that would make it very difficult for leaseholders to take over and run their building under the right to manage, which is a system that desperately needs simplification.

Some changes are being brought forward in the leasehold Bill, but thousands in my constituency will continue to suffer runaway service charges and from rogue managing agents. In the absence of the abolition of leasehold, it is only right that the Government accept the recommendations of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Lord Best, and introduce an independent regulator for managing agents through the leasehold reform Bill. I urge the Government to do that.

Human Rights: Supply Chains

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this important debate, which has implications for human rights everywhere—whether here at home or in Malaysia, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo or elsewhere.

I will focus my remarks first on Bangladesh. In May, the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh, which I chair, held a meeting on workers’ rights and labour conditions in Bangladesh following the 13th anniversary of the Rana Plaza collapse; we were joined by the Rana Plaza Solidarity Collective, the International Centre for Trade Union Rights and human rights lawyers. On 24 April 2013, 1,134 garment workers lost their lives in what trade unions at the time described as a “mass industrial homicide”.

The incident exposed the brutality of the global production system, in which labour rights are constantly under attack. I want to be clear: those Bangladeshi lives would not have been taken if workers’ rights, which are human rights, were respected in global supply chains. Before the Rana Plaza collapse, workers’ safety concerns were unheard by managers and their attempts to organise unions to address their unsafe working conditions were suppressed.

A global outrage followed the collapse of Rana Plaza, and it is true that there have been welcome advances in workers’ rights in Bangladesh since then, but the truth is that the gains have been slow and partial, and unevenly distributed across industries. That is in part due to a failure to implement universal mandatory responsibilities for human rights and labour rights. Instead, we have seen the spread of voluntary mechanisms for safeguarding rights. Brands in the global north that want to avoid reputational risk are the ones that implement safeguards themselves.

Many garment industry workers supplying the likes of Zara or Walmart do benefit from some of the measures introduced on labour rights, but that is not universal. For those in sectors less exposed to reputational damage, it is a different story. For example, in Chittagong’s deadly shipbreaking industry, workers, including child labourers, still face highly dangerous conditions without safety equipment or compensation on death. Shipping being what it is, that affects nearly every supply chain in the world.

We cannot pretend that Bangladesh’s garment or exporting factories are now all safe. As Labour Behind the Label has pointed out, fires at two separate factories last autumn, in which 17 people were killed, have shown the glaring gaps in protections between firms that have adopted the international accord and those that have not. In the years since Rana Plaza, Bangladesh has seen another 7,160 deaths in the workplace—a figure that is likely a gross undercount. That figure alone should tell us that we have long moved past the point where voluntary corporate responsibilities alone can be considered sufficient.

As we explored in the APPG on Bangladesh, in response to the Rana Plaza collapse France introduced its duty of vigilance law, requiring companies to establish, publish and effectively implement measures to prevent severe abuses of human rights in their supply chains. We have also seen the EU move to bring in a due diligence directive; Members have already pointed out how that has been watered down. None the less, I think its existence has created a legal pathway, absent in the UK, to provide victims of corporate abuse with a path to actually seek justice.

As I have mentioned, in the UK we still rely mostly on voluntary measures that offer little protection to billions of workers globally who work for unscrupulous employers or sectors. In that context, market forces will continue to drive down labour rights in a race to the bottom that rewards bad business practices and exploits or even kills workers. As civil society organisations, including those here today, have pointed out, mandatory due diligence laws are already in force in many European nations and are being advanced in Asia. If the UK fails to keep pace, we risk becoming a dumping ground for tainted goods, with our market enabling abhorrent rights violations.

In the same vein, it cannot be said that it is anywhere near sufficient for the Government to offer new business risk guidance to firms undertaking business with settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That does not meet the demands of the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on the occupation, and offers tacit permission, dressed in strong wording, for firms to continue to do business with illegal settlements. That settlement trade serves to entrench the settlements’ unlawful presence, while the importing of goods and produce justifies their continued expansion.

I want to be clear that that expansion is a violent process of ethnic cleansing undertaken by means of horrific settler attacks, hand in hand with a military occupation that stifles Palestinian people’s livelihoods and demolishes their homes. UK trade policy enables those rights abuses. I note the words of ActionAid, which states that the business guidance

“is effectively outsourcing the UK’s compliance with international law to private actors.”

All this shows how all-encompassing the issue of human rights in supply chains is. There is no doubt that if the UK Government are serious about protecting people’s human rights, including labour rights, in supply chains, strong legislation must be brought in. I note that at present a model is being advanced in the other place. I hope that all Members will support the calls from trade unions, lawyers and civil society organisations in the Corporate Justice Coalition to bring forward a new business, human rights and environmental Bill.

To be meaningful, protections for human rights, including workers’ rights, must be enshrined in law. We can say that we take human rights seriously only when we take seriously accountability for the abuses committed to bring goods to our markets. That is important because every worker deserves dignity and equality, and upholding those rights is a collective responsibility. We fail in those duties if the rights that we enjoy are denied to those in other parts of the world.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Yes, I agree. We can all agree that Royal Mail faces real challenges. Many people now communicate primarily online and fewer letters are sent, which impacts revenue.

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

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the unions earlier. We could perhaps acknowledge that the Communication Workers Union has called out the clear mismanagement of the senior leadership and the need for Royal Mail to fix its recruitment retention crisis.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the issue is much wider across the sector in that it is vastly unregulated, creating an advantageous environment for parcel couriers such as Amazon? That has an impact on Royal Mail’s ability to deliver its services when it is being fined by Ofcom. Some see that as a very punitive measure, given that Amazon and other parcel couriers carry on unregulated and make no contribution to the universal network itself. They hive off profits and pay workers a pittance.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading out the Communication Workers Union press release. I did refer earlier to bad management and occasionally militant unions. I think good management will overcome the problems, but I do not think the solution lies in more regulation of other private operators. I want to make a little progress now.

The national figures that we see represent a consistent decline in performance over several years, despite the clear legal and moral obligations that come with being the nation’s postal service. Ofcom has noticed. In 2022-23, Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. The following year, 2023-24, the fine almost doubled to £10.5 million. In 2024-25, it more than doubled again—a staggering £21 million penalty for failing to deliver the service that the public expects and deserves.

In the face of mounting pressures, changes to the USO have been adopted. I must admit that I am sympathetic to some of the arguments that have been made. If I asked many of my constituents whether they would rather have post delivered consistently every other day, they would gladly accept, but I worry that that will not happen.

Under the changes being discussed, the number of delivery days would be reduced, meaning fewer days on which post must actually be delivered. But that is not all. The performance targets have been watered down. On first-class mail, the target is set to drop from 93% to 90%. For second-class post, the target drops from 98.5% to 95%. The post will now come less frequently and Royal Mail expects to deliver even less of it on time.

In my local survey, residents scored reliability at an average of only five out of 10—some, of course, scored as much as 10, and others, zero. They already experience an unreliable service. These changes will not improve either the perception or the reality.

Let us be clear about what the situation means. This is not just a few percentage points on a chart; it is millions of people waiting longer for vital letters—legal documents, hospital appointments, prescriptions and personal correspondence. It is small businesses waiting an extra day or two to deliver goods. It is rural communities, already struggling with connectivity and transport, being pushed further to the margins. It also sets a dangerous precedent: instead of holding Royal Mail to the standards it has committed to, we simply move the goalposts to make failure acceptable.

A constituent in Bridgwater complained that his letters were being delivered in bundles of 16, 18 and, once, 23 at a time, and up to four weeks late. Does the Minister think these changes will reassure that constituent?

The Government and Ofcom need to remember that the universal service obligation is not just a technical regulation; it is a public promise. It is what makes Royal Mail more than just another delivery company and gives it a unique place in British life. Reducing delivery days, reducing targets and accepting lower standards risks eroding that promise. Once lost, it will be incredibly difficult to restore.

It is important to ask ourselves what message is sent when a national institution misses its targets so widely, is repeatedly fined, and instead of being required to improve, is allowed to relax the very standards it is meant to meet. If the argument is that letter volumes are falling, which they are, let us have an honest conversation about how that service can adapt. Right now, targets are being missed and the answer should not be, “Water down the targets until they are met.”

Royal Mail’s decline in performance is not inevitable. It is the result of choices about investment, priorities and accountability. The choice before us now is whether we accept decline or demand better. I urge Ofcom, the Government and Royal Mail to consider whether the changes, in the long term, will really improve services. Or do they, in fact, represent another step backwards?

The last time this matter was debated in Westminster Hall, in 2023, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who was then the shadow Minister for business and consumers and is now a Minister in the Foreign Office, said that

“Labour is committed to the universal service obligation as the company’s central mission. The next Labour Government will want to ensure that the USO is secure for the future and continues to be provided by Royal Mail in a way that is affordable and accessible to all users…We will also strongly oppose any attempts, whether by the Conservatives in the future or by the leadership of Royal Mail Group, to weaken or abandon the USO.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 324WH.]

Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend? What do the Government think of these changes? Has Labour forgotten the promises it made only two short years ago?

I conclude by referring once more to my local survey. Of those who did not use the postal service regularly, over a third said that was because it was too slow or too unreliable. My residents already consider the cost of posting a letter to be too expensive. The new system risks being slower, more expensive and less reliable. That is not a way to attract new custom. In April 2025, Royal Mail was acquired by the EP group, a Czech-based company owned by Daniel Křetínský. I wish the new owners well, and hope that the acquisition leads to improved levels of service and efficiency so that we have a postal service that serves everybody, everywhere. Mr Křetínský can be assured that we will watch him very carefully.

Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill

Apsana Begum Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 1st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Given the risk of running into the same wall that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown ran into, I will portray moderation on my side. I think that that is precisely why she should give the Bill a Second Reading and table any amendments, as she sees fit, to define the matter of concern and make her case in Committee. I believe that there are currently loopholes in the law that allow that abhorrent abuse to go on.

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

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.

[Luke Pollard]

I agree with my hon. Friend. People have been waiting too long; let us ensure they do not wait any longer. Let us also send a message to Members of all parties, until the general election concludes, that attacking trans people and LGBT people because of who they are is unacceptable. That should be called out on a cross-party basis. It has no part in our politics.

Legitimate debate about improving this Bill should define us at our very best. The debate so far has been a good one, because it has allowed people to voice their different views, and we should continue that in Committee, allowing people to table amendments where required to improve the Bill and ensure it does exactly what it says on the tin and stops these abhorrent, cruel practices from ever happening again.

Arms Export Licences: Israel

Apsana Begum Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing the debate and for everything she does, and is doing, in the pursuit of justice and human rights.

As my hon. Friend laid out, not only is Israel a major recipient of UK weapons, but UK weapons manufacturers are seeing enormous increases in stock prices. For example, BAE Systems’ stock increased by 11.7% just between 7 and 24 October. In addition to the value of official UK arms exports to Israel, commentators have noted a number of other forms of less public UK military assistance, which include broader trade that exploits the incorporation guidelines loophole.

Why is that significant? As has been mentioned, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry, 18,825 Palestinians have been killed since the outbreak in October. In fact, we know that the real number is much higher. To put that into perspective, Ukraine and Sudan are both widely understood by the international community to have unacceptable levels of civilian deaths, and the levels of slaughter have rightly been condemned as horrendous and horrific. On 21 November this year, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said in a press release that, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022:

“At least 10,000 civilians, including more than 560 children, have been killed”.

The United Nations also reports that more than 10,400 people have been killed in Sudan since April 2023. I repeat that those are disgracefully high levels of civilian deaths and should be condemned outright. I also repeat that, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry, 18,825 Palestinians have been killed since the outbreak in October—around 20,000 in around two months, and the vast majority are not combatants.

Israel is increasingly using its acceptable collateral damage threshold in such a way that hundreds of civilian casualties are acceptable to eliminate a single target. That is one of the simplest ways to explain the fact that the death toll includes such frightening numbers of children. In the words of the United Nations Secretary-General, Gaza is “graveyard for children”—what a terrible, terrible thing. Within weeks of the outbreak, Save the Children highlighted that the number of children killed in Gaza has surpassed the annual number of children killed across the world’s conflict zones since 2019. As we know, there are widespread concerns that war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of international law are continuing to take place.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an exceptional speech. Given the humanitarian catastrophe—as we have highlighted, over 18,000 people have died, including thousands of children—does she agree that if the UK is found to be arming Israel and not ceasing to do so, it would be complicit in this war crime?

[Apsana Begum]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are bearing witness to this unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe. It is there before us, so we have a right to know how many Palestinians were slaughtered using UK-made weapons; how many children were dispatched using UK-traded armaments; how many women have been slain by ammunition from the UK; how many schools, hospitals and refugee camps have been annihilated with the help of UK engineering; and how much profit is being made from death, destruction and war crimes. What is the Government’s price tag for humanity?

We are told that the UK’s arms export system is based on the principle of avoiding a clear risk of British weapons being used to commit serious violations of international law—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on, I am afraid. I call Richard Foord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I am going to make a bit more progress to respond to some of the points that have been made.

The ECJU also takes into account reports from non-governmental organisations, the media and others.

I must point out that the Government take the principles of responsible export control, which are set out in the strategic export licensing criteria, incredibly seriously. We can, and do, respond quickly and flexibly to change our fluid international circumstances, with all licences kept under careful and continual review as a standard.

[Apsana Begum]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The Government set their own precedent for pausing export licences in response to reports that the criteria might have been breached. In 2019, the Foreign Secretary did that; they suspended arms exports to NATO-allied Turkey following its invasion of Syria. Why can this Government not do the same now?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady raises the exact point I am coming on to, which is that the system is designed so that a change in circumstances, with a proper assessment, can lead to a change in policy. She mentioned Turkey, but it has also happened in relation to Russia, Burma, Afghanistan and other countries. That is exactly why the policy is in place. We must be able to respond quickly and flexibly to changing circumstances.