Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 25 Nov 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate and for the incredible work that she has always done to shine a light on this issue. I want to be absolutely clear that we are discussing specifically male violence against women and girls. The word “male” is often omitted, giving us the neat acronym VAWG, but when we leave it out in discussion, we remove the perpetrators from the conversation and the focus shifts solely to victims. While the protection of survivors must always be a priority, we cannot treat this as a women-only issue. This is not a female issue at all—we are not the problem. It is and always has been a male issue. There is no action that a woman can take that will ever justify her harassment, assault, rape, abuse, femicide, mutilation or any other of the horrific crimes committed by men against women and girls. Violence against women and girls is not inevitable; it is the predictable outcome of a society that still treats women’s safety as optional rather than fundamental. If we are serious about ending violence against women and girls, we have to start with prevention, and that means embedding consent and healthy relationships in education in every single school. Our focus has to be addressing the culture that raises some men and boys to believe that such behaviour is acceptable. We must confront the gaps in our criminal justice system that in practice decriminalise these offences, signalling time and again that they can be committed with little fear of consequence. I am a London MP and violence against women and girls is definitely a city-wide problem. We have heard and will continue to hear statistics that show its scale. For most women, this violence can occur anywhere—at home, at school, at work, on a night out, walking in a public space and even when travelling on public transport. Most women and girls in London will have a story about harassment on the capital’s public transport network. The data suggests it is harder to find a woman who has not experienced such harassment, although we know it is rarely reported. Of the incidents that are reported, the figures paint a very stark picture. Last year, more than 120,000 crimes of violence against women and girls were reported to the Met, with alarming levels on public transport. In the first half of 2025, 907 sexual offences were reported across Transport for London services, up from 879 in the same period the previous year. On the Elizabeth line, there was a 247.8% increase from 2023 to 2024, followed by a further rise this year. On the underground, offences rose to 856 cases from 745 the previous year, and on the bus network, reports rose by 28.6%. Again, we know these figures represent only a fraction of the true scale of offending. Surveys have found that more than half of women in London have experienced sexual harassment on buses, the tube or trains. A significant proportion of women who have experienced this harassment and assault never report it. Transport-related incidents are no exception. Too many women who do come forward are not believed, are treated as though they are the problem rather than the victim, or witness at first hand the shortcomings of investigations. They are told that the perpetrator could not be identified because the carriage was too busy, that the CCTV was not working, or that nothing can be done on this occasion but they should report it if it happens again. Those responses erode confidence that the police are willing or equipped to deal with such cases, and they add to the wider crisis of trust in policing that women and girls feel acutely. Perpetrators are effectively given the green light. They know their victim may not report, and that even if she does, the chances of being caught, let alone prosecuted, are slim. This creates a vicious cycle. Fewer reports lead to fewer prosecutions, fewer prosecutions remove any meaningful deterrent, offending escalates, men become emboldened, and women feel increasingly unsafe on the city’s transport networks. I recognise that the Mayor of London and TfL have expanded poster campaigns to encourage reporting and bystander intervention. It is important that these things are done to improve our culture, but we need more. We need far stronger co-ordination between TfL and the British Transport Police to identify and catch offenders. We need concrete, measurable action to improve conviction rates. We need every institution involved—TfL, the British Transport Police, the Met, City Hall—working together with absolute clarity and purpose to tackle harassment, protect victims and hold perpetrators to account. Women and girls should be able to travel across our city without fear for their safety. We urgently need to get a grip on this issue. As I come to the end of my speech, I want to make sure to make the point that, as well as prevention, we need to ensure that when women speak out, they have somewhere safe to go. Too many specialist support services are still struggling to keep their doors open, and the services that do exist are often inaccessible to black women, migrant women and women with insecure immigration status. A refuge that a refugee woman cannot access is no refuge at all.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding was that the Government’s immigration plans were geared towards tackling so-called illegal immigration, such as channel crossings—although I would argue that they are in fact irregular, not illegal, because it is not illegal to seek asylum. The measures we are discussing today are about retrospectively making regularised migration rules more stringent. As such, they will not have any impact on channel crossings, but will instead cause fear and uncertainty for many settled, tax-paying families. This is not just about Hongkongers; there are people from all over the world who are equally deserving of our compassion and integrity. Does my hon. Friend agree that to tackle channel crossings—

• 25 Nov 2025 · Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to tackle channel crossings by introducing more humanitarian visas and, once we have, not pulling the rug out from underneath people?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  I am always very pleased to speak in this House during Black History Month. I say that not out of ceremony, but out of conviction. I believe that it matters for black Britons watching today to see this Parliament take time to reflect on our history, our struggle and our contributions. It matters that our story is not confined to footnotes or commemorative months, but recognised as part of the very fabric of British history. Each October, I believe this debate should be on the Order Paper as a matter of course, yet too often it has been absent or dependent on the will of a few determined Members. Let me thank all those involved in ensuring that this debate takes place during Government time. Many of my colleagues will rightly use this opportunity to honour the giants of black British history—the leaders, thinkers and ordinary people who achieved extraordinary things, often in the face of unimaginable obstacles. I pay tribute to them all, but today I want to use my time differently. I want to speak frankly about why, decades after the civil rights movement and years after Black Lives Matter brought millions to the streets, we still have not tackled racism in this country and beyond. I want to say plainly that we have not tackled racism because we have not fully committed to repairing the inequality we had a part in creating. We have not committed to reparatory justice. In 2020, after the murder of George Floyd, more than 240,000 people signed a petition calling on the Government to include Britain’s role in colonialism and enslavement in the national curriculum. It became one of the most signed petitions ever submitted to Parliament and that moment felt like a turning point. I sat in the debate that followed. I remember the sense of hope that at last we would be honest about our past, honest about the empire that built Britain’s wealth and honest about the lives it destroyed, because hundreds of thousands of British people wanted it. Yet five years on, and 39 years after Black History Month was founded in the UK, very little has changed. Britain’s colonial past is still treated as an optional topic, not a foundational one. Black British history is still squeezed into one month and often taught only by those teachers who go above and beyond, using their own time and resources. Many young people grow up learning in history a lot about our monarchy, but not about our empire. The history of our monarchy is important—it speaks of how our country came to be. Some might be surprised to hear that I am a fan of the odd period drama. Those stories are very interesting, but it has to be wrong that some never hear about Queen Nanny of the Maroons, Mary Prince, Olaudah Equiano, the Bristol bus boycotts, or even the role of the British state in the enslavement of millions. That speaks to the fact that our country does not want to engage with these issues. Young people are taught about industrial innovation, but not about who paid the human cost for that progress. That cherry-picking of what to teach points to something more worrying, because we also miss out on learning about other working-class struggles, such as the miners’ strikes and the suffragettes —those stories that educate us on the power we hold as citizens and the things people have done to challenge injustice. We cannot say that this nation is facing its history when it still refuses to teach it fully. We have talked a lot about patriotism recently. Let me be clear: I do not believe that patriotism is about pretending that our history was glorious and benign; patriotism is about being honest enough to confront the truth, because only a nation unafraid of the truth can hope to build a just future. I believe that in order to stand firm in pride and power, as the theme of this Black History Month asks, we must address these issues, because where is the pride in not recognising you are wrong, and where is the power in not tackling global injustices that have failed to be repaired? Last night, I had the honour of delivering the National Union of Journalists’ Claudia Jones memorial lecture. Claudia Jones, the journalist, activist and mother of the Notting Hill carnival, taught us something very powerful. She taught us that the struggle against racism can never be separated from the struggle against imperialism. She wrote: “Imperialism is the root cause of racism. It is the ideology which upholds colonial rule and exploitation.” That is not just a historical observation; it is a diagnosis of the present. When far-right politics rises across Europe, when migrants are scapegoated and when global inequalities widen, Claudia Jones’s words feel prophetic. She understood that racism at its root is not about personal prejudice or isolated ignorance. Too often, we try to reduce it to the “few bad apples” argument. Racism is structural. It is the operating system of an economic and political order built through empire that exists today. It is the logic that justified, and still justifies, stolen land, stolen labour and stolen wealth. It is the logic that said that some people are disposable so that others might prosper. Racism did not appear by accident. It has no factual basis. Racism was engineered. That is why I say that we cannot dismantle racism without repair. If racism is built into the economic foundations of this country—in land, in labour and in capital—then the remedy must also be material. We cannot tackle a problem without getting to its roots. It was not enough for us to express deep regret and other platitudes. It was not enough for us to change a few names and statues and call it progress. We must repair the harm structurally, economically, culturally and politically. That is the very heart of the global movement for reparations. This year, the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, which I chair, hosted the third annual UK reparations conference. We saw hundreds of activists, scholars, lawyers and community leaders come together from across the world and the message was clear: the demand for repair is no longer a fringe issue; it is a moral and political necessity. And yet in Britain we still refuse to apologise for our role in enslavement and colonialism. We refuse to return stolen artefacts. We even refuse to return human remains, denying dignity even in death. We refuse to engage meaningfully with reparatory justice. Even last year, when the Commonwealth nations called for a mere discussion on reparatory justice, we said no. What does that sound like, given the history of the Commonwealth? Our country has not apologised, it has not repaired and it has not made amends. But the tide is turning and young people are asking the right questions. Institutions are beginning to confront their own archives. The debate can no longer be buried or delayed. We have to be clear that reparations are not only about money. How could they possibly be? If people think the call for reparations is a call for cash, they have not been listening. How can it be? What amount of money could ever really compensate for what happened, which was one of the greatest crimes in human history: enslavement, trafficking, genocide, ecocide, widespread theft and everything in between. Reparations are about truth, restitution and transforming relationships between nations, between communities and between the past and the present. Reparations are about acknowledging that Britain became one of the richest nations on Earth not just through industry and ingenuity, but through the extraction of human life and labour from Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and beyond. When enslavement was abolished, it was not the formerly enslaved who received compensation; it was the enslavers. They were paid the modern equivalent of billions of pounds for the loss of human property. British taxpayers, including black Britons, finished paying off that debt in 2015. That is not distant history; it is the present. It is certainly the present in my taxpaying history. Meanwhile, the descendants of those who endured generations of forced labour received nothing—to this day, not even an apology. Their names were often erased from the story of their own liberation. Freedom has been paraded as a gift. When I talk about reparations, I, the descendant of enslaved and colonised people, am often told that I should be grateful that Britain abolished the slave trade. I am proud of the role that this country, my country, played in the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, but that alone cannot be absolution. I am sorry, but I cannot see how, just because an arsonist feels guilty, we would absolve them for starting the fire in the first place. The injustice I speak of did not end with that emancipation. It continued through colonial rule, through the Berlin conference that carved up Africa without a single African present, through artificial borders and economic dependency, and through the extraction of resources that continues to this day. It means that at the UN in 2025, African nations still have to get up and ask to be included in the UN Security Council, despite the fact that African and Caribbean nations make up the majority of the countries in the world. When people ask, “Why reparations?”, I ask in return, “Why did we ever think that freedom without repair was enough, or that it was freedom at all?” In this Parliament, I am proud to be part of the legacy of the late, great Bernie Grant, who stood in this very Chamber and called for reparations when few dared to. Without truth, there can be no justice. Without justice, there can be no healing. That is why the all-party parliamentary group believes we need a commission for truth and reparatory justice. The commission would not simply investigate the past; it would examine how legacies of that past are alive in the present in the racial wealth gap, health inequalities, educational disparities and the policing of black communities. None of these patterns is accidental. They were built, and because they were built, they can and must be dismantled, but that will happen only if we have the political courage to do so. To do it, we have to move away from this lazy, reductionist style of politics, which often talks about what we cannot do instead of talking about what we can do. Every major institution in this country—banks, universities, the monarchy, museums—carries traces of wealth extracted through colonialism and enslavement. The evidence is in the bank ledgers and shipping records and in the foundations of buildings across this city. That history does not belong in footnotes; it belongs in how we shape our policies today. No individual group needs permission to demand justice. The call for reparations is grounded in international law, in human rights and in the moral truth that those who profit from crimes against humanity have a duty to repair them. This is not about guilt or unpicking the past, as I have been accused of doing previously—it is about responsibility. It is about not division, but healing. However, healing cannot begin when the truth has not been told. That is why the teaching of black history as British history is in itself reparatory. If we are serious about tackling racism, we have to be serious about this repair. Racism is about not just words or attitudes, but material conditions—who owns wealth, who holds power, and who has access to housing, healthcare, safety and dignity. Racism persists because the harm has never been repaired. The call for reparations has survived centuries because it speaks to something beyond politics. It speaks to the human need for recognition, justice and dignity, and to the possibility of renewal—not just for the nations that were wronged, but for Britain itself, because black Britons are part of that story. I could be the richest person in this country and rise to the highest office in this land, but I understand that I will never escape racism; by its very nature, until there is justice for every single person who looks like me, nothing will change in that regard. Now the world is changing and our place in it is precarious if we do not change our attitude, which still feels rooted in empire. I want our country—my country—to be looked on with respect and admiration, not because it never got anything wrong, but because we had the courage to put what we got wrong right.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by saying clearly and plainly that people who are fleeing war, famine, persecution and life-threatening situations are fully deserving of our compassion and support. I fear sometimes in these debates it sounds as if we have lost our humanity, empathy and compassion. Despite what is commonly stated on social media by far-right figures and parroted by the media and some political figures, many of the people we are discussing are fleeing awful situations that many of us can only begin to imagine. In this debate, many of their stories are lost or overshadowed by claims that they are trying to cheat the system. That is simply not true. We know that because almost half the applications for asylum submitted in 2024 were accepted at the initial decision and, of the other half, over 50% were granted on appeal. The overwhelming majority of those seeking asylum in the UK have a legitimate claim in law to be here. For clarification, that means they are not illegal. The UK has a duty under international law to accept and process asylum claims. As someone has already said, we receive far fewer than other European countries. As a signatory of the 1951 UN refugee convention, we must comply with that obligation. I am sure there are people who want to withdraw us from that convention; I hope the day when they have the power to do so never comes. We also have an obligation under our own legislation—the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—to house those seeking asylum while they await the outcome of their application. During that time, asylum seekers are not allowed to work. Many of them would want to. Many of them have overcome traumas and travelled to the UK because they want to make a better life for themselves and their families, but our laws prevent them from doing so. According to Refugee Action, at the end of 2024, 124,802 people were waiting for an initial asylum decision, with 73,866 having waited over six months. That is unnecessary. Although the process has sped up slightly under the new Government, we have to recognise that there are some countries to which we are never going to send people back, so why would we not make the claim process faster? It does not make sense to make those people wait; while they wait, they are unable to work, so the economy is missing out on hundreds of millions every year in tax and national insurance contributions. If we really wanted to reduce the cost of housing and financial support for people seeking asylum, we could simply give them the right to work and adequately staff the Home Office to handle their claims. We could give local authorities all the millions that we are currently sending to private companies to build and buy social housing. I was pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) mention that in his opening speech. Implementing those simple solutions would be much easier than what we are currently doing, but I fear that those solutions are not chosen because it better fits the narrative that has become so popular in our discourse to say that we will ban people from claiming asylum if they came here through so-called illegal means—despite the fact that there are no safe and legal routes for them to come here—and house people in conditions far worse than those they are already in, all while private companies profit. I think that is the wrong narrative. We need to make a positive case and be clear that it is the system that is the issue, not the people. I want to address the deeply misleading notion, which I was pleased to hear colleagues address, that asylum seekers are staying in luxury accommodation in so-called five-star hotels and being given a top-tier service. That could not be further from the truth. I have visited various types of asylum seeker accommodation in London and across the country, and there is nothing luxurious about it. It is one family per cramped single room, typically of a standard below what anyone would deem acceptable, many with infestations of bedbugs, cockroaches and other vermin. Some would have us believe that asylum seekers are being given hundreds of pounds a week to pay for a luxury lifestyle, but a vulnerable family seeking asylum is given a measly £5.84 a day—just over £40 a week—to live on. That is not a large amount for a family. It is hardly a luxury lifestyle. The notion that those seeking asylum and refugees make up a significant proportion of people coming to the UK is false. In fact, the opposite is true. Too often those on other visas are conflated with those seeking asylum just to help create a negative narrative. When we have these discussions, it would be helpful for others to highlight that we are talking about a very small proportion of people in the UK’s overall immigration figures and that the crisis is very much fabricated. We should meet our legal and moral duty instead of fuelling a false narrative.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Health and Social Care Committee · Hansard source

  More

  As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on black maternal health, I extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) and all the members on the Health and Social Care Committee for this vital report. Was my hon. Friend disappointed, as I was, not to see any specific mention in the NHS 10-year plan of black maternal health? We have long awaited a target and a plan for ending this disparity. Does she agree that that is something we should look towards?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 25 September, I sent a letter to the Foreign Secretary that was signed by more than 80 Members of the House. It expressed our pressing concern for the safety of British citizens participating in the global sumud flotilla, a non-violent humanitarian mission trying to deliver aid to Gaza. We were concerned that the flotilla would be violently intercepted by Israeli forces, and we called on the Government to protect British citizens. A week later, that actually happened. It then also happened just last week, when participants on the Gaza freedom flotilla were also intercepted, including four British citizens. I and other Members of this House have received many emails about that, and we even had constituents on board. That is twice that the safety of British citizens was put at risk, and to our knowledge the Government did not condemn Israel’s actions, and we have not been made aware of what actions were taken to secure their release. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise on how Members can hold the Government to account during the recess, particularly at times when the safety of our citizens is under threat? Can you advise us on how Members can secure timely responses in times of urgency?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Baby Loss · Hansard source

  More

  I know that this debate is not an easy one for those of us participating and for the campaigners, activists and bereaved parents who are listening, but it is nevertheless vital and I am very thankful that it is taking place. I begin by commending all those, including my hon. Friends who have led this debate in the House and beyond, who have found the courage to stand up and speak about their experiences of baby loss. I know from personal experience just how difficult that is to do—to reopen that wound and to relive that pain in public. Every story of baby loss, told or untold, is worthy of our compassion and respect, and I say that because after the occasions when I have shared my own experience, I have been met time and again with questions: how long ago was it, how far along were you and how do you know that racism was a factor? Perhaps some of those questions were asked in innocence, but let me tell you how it made me feel: as if people were measuring my loss, weighing my grief and deciding how much pain I was allowed to feel, and as if there were a scale for sorrow. It is not one-sided. I have spoken to women who, after hearing my experience, have opened up about their own and ended by saying that their experiences were not “as bad” because mine was a late-term stillbirth and theirs was a miscarriage. That broke my heart because it is not true. To all those who experience baby loss in whatever form, your experience matters, your grief matters and your loss matters. That is why Baby Loss Awareness Week is about all forms of pregnancy and baby loss—it is not the loss Olympics. Whether it is an abortion someone had to have, an ectopic pregnancy, an early or late miscarriage, a stillbirth or neonatal death, every single one of those experiences deserves recognition and care. No one—absolutely no one—has the right to quantify your loss. For those of us who have shared our stories, we do not do it for validation or pity; we share them so that others who have endured baby loss know they are not alone, no matter when or how they lost their baby. We share them as a call to action because in a country like ours, the figures surrounding maternal mortality and baby loss should never ever be acceptable. Earlier this year, I led a debate in recognition of Black Maternal Health Awareness Week, during which I highlighted the racial disparity in maternity care and the fact that it has gone down. Black and mixed heritage women are now three times more likely to die during pregnancy and childbirth, down from five times when I first launched the APPG for black maternal health, and Asian women are twice as likely. Regretfully, this decline is not necessarily something to celebrate, nor is it due to improvements in maternity care for black women. It is because the UK’s overall maternity mortality figures are rising. More women and babies are dying in the UK now than in the last two decades. Black women are likely experiencing even further deterioration. The latest findings from MBRRACE-UK reveal a widening divide in neonatal death rates between the UK’s most and least deprived areas. Black and minority ethnic people are 2.5 times more likely to live in relative poverty and 2.2 times more likely to live in deep poverty. In plain terms, poverty and deprivation are costing newborn lives, so the combination of socioeconomic inequalities and institutional racism has a double impact on black women and their babies’ experiences of maternity care and its outcomes. The data also shows a sharp rise in stillbirths among babies of Asian heritage, and black babies remain twice as likely to be stillborn. Urgent, targeted action is needed to tackle these deaths and health inequalities and prevent avoidable deaths. The new report from the Health and Social Care Committee on black maternal health shows that the outcomes of maternity care are shaped by systemic failings in leadership, training, data collection and accountability. The Secretary of State will know that when the Government promised to find a way forward, I was proud, and when the Government made it a manifesto commitment to set a target to end disparity in maternity care, I was prouder, but this has not happened. The NHS 10-year plan has come and gone without a specific plan for racial disparities in maternity care. If that was not the time to announce a target, when will it be?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Access · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will be aware of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which is the largest maritime mission to Gaza and includes civilians from across the globe, two of whom are constituents of mine. This aid mission is entirely legal, non-violent and presents no threat to the Israeli Government or Israeli citizens. However, we have already seen attacks on it, and we know from past experience that it may face further attacks. Does she agree that it should be the primary duty of this Government to protect British citizens, including those participating in the flotilla? If so, will she join me in calling on the Minister to outline exactly what the Government will do to secure the safety of our citizens?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  Those arrested were merely holding signs, wearing T-shirts and displaying general support for a group that does not come close to the loosest definition of terrorism. Meanwhile, political pundits and columnists seem free to discuss Palestine Action without fear of criminal prosecution. I do not think that anyone should face arrest for doing that, but it does not seem fair that people can get away with it as long as they are doing it in front of a TV camera. Will the Minister explain how the law is being applied, whether it is being applied fairly and where people are allowed to show support for Palestine Action? It is clear that some people are being allowed to do it, but others are not.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for bringing forward this debate. When the Government introduced their immigration White Paper, they proposed increasing the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10. The intent was to dissuade people from coming to settle in the UK and to convince those who are here to leave. Welcoming the Minister—and his socks—to his place, I ask him who it is that they are hoping to dissuade from coming here and who they are hoping will leave. Is it the doctors, nurses, teachers, transport workers and cleaners who kept this country moving during the pandemic and for whom many of us clapped as they put their lives at risk while we stayed safely at home? I ask because it is those sectors, which are reliant on international workers, that will be hit the hardest by this policy. The Government have suggested that “high-skilled, high-contributing individuals…such as nurses, doctors, engineers and AI leaders” could be fast-tracked for settlement, but it remains unclear what that means in practice. For example, it is clear that changing the ILR period from five years to 10 will have a negative impact on the NHS workforce specifically; it risks an exodus of international healthcare staff, which would undermine the Government’s 10-year plan for the NHS. We are talking about the one in five NHS staff who are non-UK nationals and the 45% of licensed doctors in the NHS who are international medical graduates, a large number of whom are leaving the UK, mostly due to low pay, the high cost of living and the declining quality of life. Many also cite visa requirements as a reason for leaving. We are talking about the 43.7% of international nurses who left the Nursing and Midwifery Council register in the last year who had been on the register for less than five years. Some 40% of them said that immigration policy was an important factor in that. Those departures will have a profound impact on the NHS workforce, which is already depleted and struggling. Instead of taking steps to make it harder for international medical staff to come and stay in the UK, we should be taking steps to encourage them and, for the sake of our NHS, making it easier for them to stay. I am also deeply concerned that the Government have not yet indicated whether the change would apply to those already in the UK. International doctors and healthcare professionals need reassurance now that their status will not be affected. That means Hongkongers and all other migrants, too. It would be simply unfair and frankly cruel to apply an extension to the ILR pathway retrospectively, and it would significantly impact those already on the pathway, as well as their families, employers and communities. We have to start being frank that the pursuit of net migration targets has undermined our economy and our public services and created a hostile environment in our communities. Changing immigration rules in this way will undo the work that has been done so far to repair our NHS. I urge the Government to reconsider. I want to end by saying two things. First, although the topic of this debate is the changes to indefinite leave to remain for skilled worker visa holders in particular, it should go without saying that a person should not have to belong to a critical sector just to deserve compassion in our immigration system. Secondly, I want to remind Members of something my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said. She mentioned the top five nationalities in applications to be in this country over the past five years: Nigerian, Pakistani, Indian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi—all Commonwealth nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out the rights that they are afforded: in this country, Commonwealth nationals on any length of visa can register to vote in both local and national elections, and I expect that they and their British national family members and friends will have views on these issues. We should take note of that. The UK has always boasted a diverse workforce in every single sector, and those who come to establish their lives in the UK are a benefit to our society. We should bear in mind that they vote here. Our immigration policy should reflect the fact that we value them.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the hard work he has done on this issue since he entered the House. As he was speaking, I thought to myself that in all the cases that have led to these discussions—Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, nuclear test veterans, the Primodos scandal and countless others—the victims and their families have had to deal with the initial trauma of the incident and then the prolonged trauma as a result of all the lies that have been told. Does he agree that introducing a duty of candour would protect victims and their families from that prolonged trauma and that that should take priority over protecting the public body that is responsible? That is how the Government can show victims and their families that they are listening. This is why my hon. Friend is so forthright on bringing forward a Hillsborough law—because it would include the duty of candour.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q6. This week, the Global Sumud flotilla, which includes British citizens, set sail for Gaza to break the illegal blockade and deliver much-needed aid. In June, a British boat, the Madleen, was threatened and its crew detained, but we took no action. Can the Prime Minister say what has been learned from this, and what steps are being taken to protect the British citizens on this flotilla?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I really welcome the Bill’s efforts to strengthen communities and local democracy. However, I am worried that not enough is being done to protect private renters. In Lambeth, nearly a third of residents are renters. Rents are rising faster than wages, and the average renter is paying 72% more than the national average, which is leaving many families struggling and in poverty. The Renters’ Rights Bill was definitely a step in the right direction, but it fell short on rent hikes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is an opportunity to give metro mayors the power to bring in rent controls and protect renters in their cities?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In April, I raised the issue of the need for blood donations, and of people from diverse communities being turned away. In response to parliamentary questions about diversity and blood referrals, I initially received data, provided by NHS Blood and Transplant, stating that 70% of black blood donors were being turned away for low haemoglobin levels. The Department of Health and Social Care withdrew that data, stating that it was incorrect. Two months and a point of order later, I received new data saying that 40% of black and mixed-heritage blood donors were being turned away for low haemoglobin levels, but that data was not even for the same period. The NHS needs three blood donations every single minute for people in emergency situations, women who have given birth, and people with blood cancer and conditions such as sickle cell, the fastest growing genetic condition in the country, whose sufferers require specifically matched blood, if they receive donations. On NHS Blood and Transplant’s website, it indicates that it can meet that demand only 50% of the time. When we return from recess, may we have an urgent debate in Government time on what happens the other 50% of the time? Receiving mismatched blood is very, very serious. With increasing demand, we simply cannot afford to turn away blood donors, particularly those from diverse communities.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the intervention by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), is the hon. Member aware not only that Commonwealth countries allow people to claim citizenship from the birth of their parents or grandparents, but that some countries—notably Ghana and Kenya—specifically allow people to claim citizenship purely by being of African heritage, because they may not be able to trace their lineage due to enslavement?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise simply to ask the Minister if he might publish the assessment. He has said continuously that the Bill is fair, but I want to impress upon him that it cannot possibly be fair that should such orders be brought about, they would impact me and not him. I do not think that is fair at all. I would also like the Minister to address his statement that the Bill is not discriminatory. He must understand that some communities may have these provisions applied against them more than others, even though they may be used sparingly, and that fact makes it discriminatory. He has to accept that. I would also be grateful if the Minister thought specifically about the fact that no matter how sparingly the legislation is applied, it is being used more than in the past, and that is giving people much cause for concern. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed out, the Minister and the Secretary of State may not always be in this place, and there may be others who wish to use the legislation in a way that is not intended. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address those points and see exactly where our concerns remain.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has made very clear exactly where the Bill will apply, but will he be clear about exactly who it will apply to? We have asked this question in different ways when talking about who we think will be disadvantaged, but can he be clear that those of British nationality who have no other claim to a nationality cannot be subject to such an order?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this whole notion of heritage is not even an exact science? My first black ancestor to be born in this country was born in 1806, in Twyford; I have no idea where that is, but I know it is not that far from here. He was the son of a formerly enslaved person and a white domestic servant living in the house of his former master. I do not know what that particular ancestry is, but it goes quite far back. Just because someone called Thomas Birch-Freeman, who was living in the UK and would be deemed British by this legislation, travelled to Ghana as a missionary and settled there, and that is where my lineage comes from, I am now treated differently under the law, despite, perhaps, having heritage that may be similar to that of the right hon. Gentleman.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of amendment 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who is definitely on the other side of the House but who I am very much allied with in seeing the clear flaws in this Bill. Like him, I remain uncomfortable about the Bill as a whole, which I am sure will come as no surprise to the Minister. I was quite clear on Second Reading about my concerns, which unfortunately the Minister failed to adequately respond to. Under the Bill, someone who successfully appeals against an order taking their British citizenship away will not get it back until it is no longer possible for the Government to challenge that appeal. At present, the length of time is indefinite, making this a measure that is effectively designed to circumvent the judiciary, and I want to fully understand why. On Second Reading, I repeatedly asked the Minister to specify what act a person must commit to fall into the particularly unique situation in which the Government would want to revoke their citizenship, and why there is no existing legislation that can be used to take criminal proceedings against, or imprison, them as someone who is extremely dangerous. I would really like him to give a clear example—beyond the one case that has sparked this knee-jerk response—of where this legislation would be required. He has to recognise that, once law, it can be used in more than one way and in more than one case, as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire has clearly laid out. Surely the Minister can understand the apprehension that many people will have if this legislation is being brought forward to address only one specific example, yet potentially has implications for dual nationals and for those with eligibility for citizenship elsewhere. I mentioned on Second Reading that certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always—whether it is the stated intention or not—disproportionately impacts them. To be clear, I am talking about people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, and those with parents or grandparents who may have been born elsewhere; they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. Those of us who are entitled to citizenship of other countries for no other reason than where our parents or grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, know that we are at a higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. When such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens, and we have known that since the Shamima Begum case. As far as I am concerned, this Bill goes beyond keeping people safe and beyond a technical adjustment. It sends a message that certain people and certain communities are forever second-class citizens, and that no matter how long someone has contributed to this country, their citizenship is conditional, revocable and disposable. It seems that we have learned nothing at all from the Windrush scandal, because we continue to go through this cycle of creating pieces of legislation that may impact certain communities, noticing that they may impact those communities and passing them anyway. As far as I am concerned, the power to remove someone’s citizenship has its roots in colonial logic, whereby belonging is granted or revoked at the whim of empire, but there is no more empire. That logic has no place in a modern democratic society. Citizenship should never be a privilege to be granted or withdrawn based on the political agenda of the day. Citizenship is and should be a right, and it is the foundation of equality before the law; and even though this may not be the intention, the Bill undermines that right for some people while safeguarding it for others. I am against this Bill not just because of what it does, but because of what it says. Why has the Minister not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment? I know the Bill has an incredibly narrow scope, but its potential implications are vast and the potential impact is limited to specific communities. Steps should have been taken to understand the impact that this legislation might have. I hope the Government will consider amendment 1. We know that these cases are lengthy and can last several years; I point again to the Shamima Begum case as an example. Leaving somebody essentially stateless as the Government exhaust the appeals process risks their freedom and safety. Although the Government may wish to wash their hands of the individual whom they are seeking to deprive of citizenship—as evidenced by the very nature of appeal—that person and their safety is and absolutely ought to be, by law, the responsibility of their Government. If rendering them stateless throughout their appeal, regardless of whether it lasts a few months or a few years, risks harm to the individual, then it is only right that a judge can rule that the order does not continue to take effect until the appeals process is exhausted. Ultimately, I believe that this legislation is reactionary and has been born out of frustration at the failures of the existing legislation. If someone is deemed to pose a severe threat to public safety and the existing legislation does not allow the Government to deal with the matter appropriately, we must amend the existing legislation. As I said before, I am against this Bill not just because of what it does, but because of what it says about who we are and whose rights matter, and about whether justice in this country is truly blind or whether it sees skin colour and migration history before it sees the individual and the citizen. I genuinely do not believe that this knee-jerk approach is the answer. Creating second-class citizens is not the answer. There surely has to be another way.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to the many amendments that attempt to improve this Bill, which I signed in desperation, because I did not enter politics to strip vital support from those who need it, yet the Bill does exactly that. We are the party that created the welfare state, so we know the welfare state is not a handout—sadly, the debate on this Bill has characterised it as such—but a lifeline. Proposing to take that lifeline away from anyone who may need it is a betrayal of those we are elected to serve. While I welcome the Government stepping back on some elements of the Bill, I do not believe they have gone far enough. As it stands, £2 billion is still set to be cut from hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes, which cannot be right. That is why I am pleased to support amendment (a) to amendment 2, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), to scrap the cut to the universal credit health element entirely. We have to realise that disability rights organisations still do not support the cut at all. The impact assessments that do exist are inadequate or worrying, and thousands will still be pushed into poverty. In truth, the announcement of the Timms review does little to quell my fears. This Government-led review will take place after the Bill takes effect. Whether or not the review is co-produced, the Government will be taking support away from disabled people and then consulting them on their views after the fact. The toxicity around the Bill means that it is being criticised by those whom it is meant to support, and that is really not a good start. While I am pleased that the points element has been removed from the Bill, I still share the concerns held by many disability rights groups about what the Bill will truly mean for disabled people. That is why I have signed my name to amendments that will go some way towards making the Bill somewhat more humane. Amendment 38, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), would protect those with fluctuating conditions. New clause 8, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and new clause 11, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), would fix concerns about the Timms review by ensuring it is followed by primary legislation and by mandating its implementation and co-production with disabled people. Other amendments that I support include those to protect carers and to ensure that due regard is given to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We would be wrong to ignore the UN’s warning that the Bill will worsen the rights of disabled people. We have to remember that PIP allows many disabled people to access work. Cutting support does not incentivise work, but prevents it. The claim that these reforms would have boosted employment simply does not hold up. Let us not forget that the Bill was published three weeks ago, and was gutted on Second Reading with a further week to rush it through Parliament. That is no way to legislate on matters with such serious consequences. We have a health crisis in our nation, especially in respect of mental health, and the answer is not to take financial support away from those who need it. If we want to reduce the number of people off work due to physical or mental ill health, we have to continue to address the issues in our healthcare system, and get on with the plans to allow people to access appointments and assessments to stop their ailments worsening. This is not how welfare reform should be carried out, and even at this late stage I urge the Government to throw this Bill out. Some may say that that would be mad, but surely it cannot be worse than what we have been doing this week. We have to be frank about why the Bill was introduced. It was primarily about saving money, but it would balance the books on the backs of the sick and disabled. I am really tired of how we talk about the economy and about growth in this House as though this is a household bill and we can cut this or cut that. No one seems to ask a good economist and find out that we are meant to invest for growth. People keep telling me that I am young, which is patronising—and it is not even that true any more—but I still cannot find anyone who can give me an example of a time in history when cuts to public services or welfare have solved the issues of the day. That is the case again and again, and those discussions need to end. There are many other ways in which we can save money. As many Members have pointed out, we could end tax loopholes or have a wealth tax. I was pleased to add my name to amendment 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which would scrap third-party PIP assessments. US multinationals are making millions of pounds out of those assessments, while humiliating people and/or getting it wrong. We are told that all this is about getting people into work, but I just cannot see how we can continue to hold on to that idea. I reiterate that it may seem bad to drop the Bill at this late stage, but it cannot be worse than the debate we have had over the past couple of weeks.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am confused. If the individuals in question have done something so bad that they have to be deprived of their citizenship, why would we not simply jail them? Why would we need to deprive them of their citizenship?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I hope the Minister understands the assurances I have been asking for. This will be the third time I have asked. I genuinely want to understand why someone who is such a danger to our public cannot be dealt with under other pieces of legislation. At the moment it seems that we cannot even stop them coming into the country because of the existing legislation. He also keeps saying that the Bill does not widen the situation under which people can be deprived of their citizenship, but it does; it does so on the basis that someone can win an appeal and then be told that they are not going to be given their citizenship back because the Government have further rights of appeal. The Bill does widen that situation. We genuinely need those assurances and an understanding as to why such dangerous people cannot be dealt with under other pieces of legislation.